Skip to main content

Full text of "History of state banking in Maryland;"

See other formats 


JOHNS  HOPKINS  UNIVERSITY  STUDIES 

IN 

HISTORICAL  AND   POLITICAL  SCIENCE 

HERBERT  B.  ADAMS,  Editor 


History  is  past  Politics  and  Politics  are  present  History.— Freeman 


VOLUME  XVII 


Economic  History-Maryland 
and  the  South 


BALTIMORE 

THE  JOHNS  HOPKINS  PRESS 
1899 


COPYRIGHT,    1900 
BY  THE  JOHNS   HOPKINS   PRESS 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 


PAGE. 

I-III.     History   of  State   Banking  in   Maryland.       By  A.   C. 

Bryan )  .    .    .    .  ^ i 

IV- V.     History  of  the  Know-Nothing  Party  in  Maryland.     By 

L.  F.   Schmeckebier 145 

VI.     The  Labadist  Colony  in  Maryland.     By  B.  B.  James  .         271 
VII-VIII.     History   of    Slavery   in    North    Carolina.       By   J.    S. 

Bassett 317 

IX-XI.     Early  Development  of  the  Chesapeake  &  Ohio  Canal 

Project.    By  G.  W.  Ward 425 

XII.     Public  Educational  Work  in  Baltimore.     By  Herbert 

•  B.  Adams 539 


BALTIMORE,    MD.,    U.  S.  A. 


History  of  State  Banking 


IN 


Maryland 


V 

SERIES  XVII  Nos.  1,  2,  3 

JOHNS  HOPKINS  UNIVERSITY  STUDIES 

m 

HISTORICAL   AND   POLITICAL  SCIENCE 

HERBERT  B.  ADAMS,  Editor 


History  is  past  Politics  and  Politics  are  present  History. — Freeman 


HISTORY  OF  STATE  BANKING 


MARYLAND 


BY 

ALFRED  COOKMAN  BRYAN,  PH.D. 

Instructor  Washington  High  School  .   tl 


THE  JOHNS  HOPKINS  PRESS,  BALTIMORE 

PUBLISHED  MONTHLY 
JANUARY,  FEBRUARY,  MARCH,  1899 


MAY  2  9  1975 

0V  CS 

5^%/ry  OF  10?^ 


CONTENTS. 


PREFACE    7 

CHAPTER  I. — THE  BEGINNING  OF  BANKING  IN  MARYLAND, 

1790-1810   9 

Section    i.     Introduction 9 

Section    2.     Economic  Condition  of  Mary-land       .        .        .10 
Section    3.     Source  of  Maryland  Banking  Ideas     .        .        -13 

Section   4.     Early  Banks 17 

Section    5.    A  Typical  Charter 25 

Section    6.     Some  Features  of  Early  Maryland  Banking       .    30 
Section    7.     Practice.        . 35 

CHAPTER  II.— BANKING  IN  MARYLAND,  1810-1864   ...    40 
Section    i.     A  Period  of  Expansion,  1810-1818      .        .        .40 
Section    2.     An  Industrial  Experiment  by  the  Banks;  Re- 
charter  and  Taxation 44 

Section   3.     Suspension  of  1814 48 

Section   4.     Crisis  of  1818 54. 

Section    5.    Condition  of  the  Banks  after  the  Crises  of  1814 

and  1818 57 

Section    6.     Practice  of  the  Banks 65 

Section    7.     Miscellaneous  Legislation  .        .        .        :        .70 

Section    8.     Crises  of  1825  and  1828 73 

Section    9.     Expansion  of  1829-36 75 

Section  10.     An  Attempt  to  Establish  a  Bank  of  the  State  of 

Maryland 81 

Section  n.    The  Merchants'  Bank  Charter    .        .        .        .85 
(a)    Uniform  Regulation  of  Banks  .        .        .85 

(6)     Increased  Taxation 87 

Section  12.     Crisis  of  1834  and  its  Effects        .        .        .        .88 
Section  13.     Crisis  and  Suspension  of  1837      .        .        .        .95 

Section  14.     Crisis  of  1839 99 

Section  15.     Practice  1837-44 101 

Section  1 6.     Effects  of  the  Crises  of  1837  and  1839  .        .        .  104 

Section  17.     Other  Details 107 

Section  18.     Increase  of  Banking  Capital,  1843-62  .         .         .  109 

Section  19.     Expansion  1845-57 IX4 

Section  20.     General  Banking  Law 116 

Section  21.     Crisis  and  Suspension  of  1857      ....  119 
Section  22.     The  Baltimore  Clearing  House  .        .        .        .123 


Contents. 


Section  23.    Suspension  of  1860 

Section  24.     Effects  of  the  National  Bank  Act 

Section  25.     Conclusion   . 

APPENDIX. 

I.    Maryland  State  Bank  Statistics     . 
II.    Bibliography 


PACK. 
•  125 
.  129 
.  132 


137 
141 


PREFACE. 

Banking  under  State  charters,  the  system  under  which  all 
the  banks  of  the  United  States,  except  the  two  national 
banks,  were  organized  from  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution 
down  to  1863,  a  period  of  over  eighty  years,  has  received 
very  little  scientific  investigation.  The  scattered  character 
of  the  material  has  been  one  of  the  chief  obstacles  to  a  de- 
tailed inquiry  into  this  large  division  of  our  banking  history. 
Local  studies  in  the  various  States  must  necessarily  precede 
the  comprehensive  treatment  of  the  whole  subject.  The 
advantages  to  be  gained  from  the  study  of  our  banking  ex- 
perience cannot  be  doubted,  and  especially  at  the  present 
time  are  its  lessons  important,  when  we  are  in  the  midst  of 
discussion  of  reforms  in  banking  and  currency,  and  the 
necessity  of  a  change  in  our  present  system  is  within  plain 
view. 

Moreover,  as  a  portion  of  local  history,  the  subject  has  a 
decided  interest.  The  development  of  banking  facilities  and 
the  industrial  progress  of  the  State  have  been  very  closely 
connected. 

Nothing  whatever  has  been  written  upon  State  banking  in 
Maryland.  Scant  materials  have  rendered  necessary  the 
omission  entirely  of  some  subjects  which  should  have  found 
place,  and  the  limited  treatment  of  others.  The  more  im- 
portant sources  for  the  present  narrative  are  the  Maryland 
Laws,  Maryland  Public  Documents,  Reports  of  the  State 
Treasurer,  and  of  the  Comptroller  of  the  Treasury  of  Mary- 
land, and  Niles's  Register.  The  bank  reports  made  to  the 
State  Treasurer  before  1828  were  not  published,  and  the 
statistical  material  for  this  period  is  quite  unsatisfactory. 
From  1828  to  1863  the  reports  were  generally  published,  and 
are  available  in  the  Maryland  Public  Documents.  The  orig- 


8  Preface. 

inal  reports  were  destroyed  "with  all  the  other  rubbish," 
as  a  State  officer  informed  me.  Newspaper  and  magazine 
files  have  been  constantly  consulted. 

Acknowledgment  must  be  made  of  the  courtesy  of  the 
Maryland  Historical  Society,  the  use  of  whose  library  gave 
to  the  writer  access  to  many  pamphlets  and  papers  not  else- 
where obtainable.  Acknowledgment  must  also  be  made  to 
many  bankers  for  information  and  suggestions  concerning 
matters  within  their  experience. 

A.  C.  B. 


History  of  State  Banking  in  Maryland, 
1790-1864. 


CHAPTER   I. 
THE  BEGINNING  OF  BANKING  IN  MARYLAND,  1790-1810. 

i.  Introduction. 

In  the  following'  narrative  we  shall  study  the  system  of 
banking  which  existed  in  Maryland  prior  to  the  passage  of 
the  National  Bank  Act  in  1863.  The  organization  and  line 
of  development  will  be  studied  chiefly  as  they  are  reflected  in 
the  legislative  regulations  upon  banking  by  the  General 
Assembly  of  the  State.  Our  history  will  be,  however,  more 
than  a  bare  legislative  history,  for  political,  economic  and 
industrial  conditions  will  be  constantly  examined  to  afford 
the  reason  for  legislative  action,  and  also  the  close  relation- 
ship between  development  in  banking  and  industrial  ad- 
vancement will  be  constantly  kept  in  view. 

The  limits  of  our  territory  shall  be  observed,  so  far  as  the 
nature  of  the  subject  will  permit.  If  the  present  paper  were 
the  place  for  it,  material  for  a  broad  comparative  study  is  not 
available.  The  period  covered  extends  from  the  first  grant 
of  a  charter  for  banking  purposes,  in  1790,  to  1864,  at  which 
date  State  banking  was  almost  entirely  superseded  by  the 
establishment  of  a  national  banking  system,  in  consequence 
of  which  nearly  all  the  old  banks  reorganized  as  national 
banks,  and  the  old  system  received  little  further  develop- 
ment. 


10  Plistory  of  State  Banking  in  Maryland. 

The  term  "State  banking"  is  used  in  the  sense  common  in 
the  United  States  as  applicable  to  banks  operating  under 
State  charters,  as  opposed  to  government  or  national  banks. 
The  study  will  be  confined  to  "banks"  in  the  ordinary 
sense,  i.  e.,  to  those  having  the  three  functions  of  discount, 
deposit  and  issue.  "Banks"  in  the  early  sense,  implying 
simply  the  power  of  issue,  under  which  class  would  fall  land 
and  other  private  banks,  and  also  early  government  banks, 
will  not  be  considered.  Savings  banks  are  also  omitted  from 
treatment,  except  in  so  far  as  they  possessed  the  three  func- 
tions named. 

The  year  1810  presents  itself  as  a  natural  point  of  division. 
The  period  before  this  is  concerned  with  the  introduction  of 
banks  into  Maryland,  the  economic  conditions  giving  rise  to 
their  organization,  and  the  source  of  Maryland  banking 
ideas.  The  disappearance  of  the  first  Bank  of  the  United 
States  marks  a  period  in  the  banking  history  of  the  country. 
Particular  results  of  it  in  Maryland  were  the  broad  exten- 
sion of  banking  facilities  to  the  counties,  in  contrast  to  their 
previous  confinement  to  Baltimore  and  Annapolis,  and  at 
the  same  time  there  occurred  a  decided  change  in  the  char- 
acter of  banking  in  the  State,  a  period  of  experimentation 
follows,  due  to  the  withdrawal  of  the  controlling  influence 
of  the  United  States  Bank. 

2.  Economic  Condition  of  Maryland. 

Banks  in  the  modern  sense,  exercising  functions  of  dis- 
count, deposit  and  issue,  cannot  be  said  to  have  existed  in 
America  until  the  last  quarter  of  the  eighteenth  century. 
Their  establishment  was  called  for  by  the  economic  needs  of 
the  country.  It  is  generally  true  that  in  a  new  and  develop- 
ing country  profitable  employment  can  be  found  for  all  ob- 
tainable capital.  In  addition  to  this,  the  English  colonies 
were  just  emerging  from  a  long  period  of  war,  in  which  their 
resources  had  been  greatly  exhausted.  The  revival  of  in- 
dustry from  the  interruption  of  the  war  was  quick  and  ener- 
getic, and  capital  was  in  demand  for  productive  purposes. 


The  Beginning,  1790-1810.  11 

The  value  of  banks  in  collecting  free  capital,  in  aiding  the 
anticipation  of  funds,  in  increasing  the  medium  of  trade,  was 
clearly  seen.1 

The  condition  of  the  circulating  medium  was  also  a  source 
of  inconvenience  and  confusion.  Prolonged  scarcity  of 
money  sooner  or  later  drove  all  the  colonies  to  paper  issues. 
A  proper  limit  was  seldom  observed,  consequently  deprecia- 
tion resulted,  and  fresh  issues  became  in  the  hands  of  a  spec- 
ulating and  debtor  class  a  means  of  release  from  their  obli- 
gations. 

Maryland  first  issued  paper  money  in  1733.  Thereafter 
almost  any  object,  war,  State  loans,  roads,  bridges,  State 
buildings  or  what  not,  became  a  sufficient  excuse  for  a  new 
issue.  The  intervals  between  emissions  varied  from  one  to 
six  years,  and  the  amounts  ranged  from  $150,000  to  $1,500,- 
ooo.  After  a  term  of  years,  usually  about  twelve,  the  notes 
were  to  be  redeemed,  but  redemption  was  commonly  made 
in  new  notes  at  fixed  rates.  The  depreciation  was  usually 
about  six  or  seven  to  one  of  specie. 

During  the  Revolutionary  War  this  paper  currency 
reached  its  floodtide.  The  Continental  Congress  issued  at 
least  $200,000,000,  which  distributed  itself  throughout  the 
States.2  It  did  not,  however,  supersede  State  money  in 
Maryland;  both  were  made  legal  tender  in  1777.  The  war 
expenses  necessitated  increased  State  issues  to  aid  the  State 
treasury.  In  1777  Maryland  issued  $1,300,000;  in  1780  an- 
other million  followed,  and  in  1781,  a  third.  The  whole 
mass  depreciated  greatly,  and  continental  bills  became 
worthless.  Maryland  currency  at  this  time  was  composed 
of  various  issues,  known  as  continental  bills,  convention  bills, 
provincial  bills,  State  continental  bills,  State  money,  black 
money  and  red  money.  Such  a  quantity  of  paper  in  circu- 
lation was  naturally  calculated  to  drive  out  the  specie,  al- 
though in  1781  the  considerable  sum  of  £  100,000  was  esti- 

1See  pp.  17  and  21. 

*  Thomas  Jefferson's  estimate.  Cf.  H.  Phillips,  Amer.  Paper 
Currency,  2d  series,  p.  199. 


12  History  of  State  Banking  in  Maryland. 

mated  to  be  still  in  the  State,  although  it  became  more  and 
more  hoarded.1  It  is  difficult  at  this  time  to  imagine  the 
confusion  inevitably  resulting  from  such  a  mixture  of  paper 
and  metal  money. 

To  relieve  this  condition  of  the  circulating  medium,  and 
to  assist  in  the  industrial  revival  which  was  occurring  imme- 
diately after  the  war,  fresh  paper  issues,  superseding  the  old 
ones,  and  with  better  provision  against  depreciation,  were 
believed  to  be  the  remedy.  Bills  for  new  emissions  were 
urged  at  every  session  of  the  Assembly,  but  unsuccessfully. 
The  sound  industrial  classes  preferred  existing  conditions  to 
the  probable  perversion  of  the  remedy  by  demagogues  and 
speculators,  and  the  virtual  destruction  of  the  effects  of  all 
money  contracts.2  The  numerous  special  bills  for  the  relief 
of  debtors  at  this  time  indicate  also  the  class  which  was  most 
clamorous  for  State  issues. 

The  industrial  development  of  Maryland  after  the  war 
was  something  phenomenal.  In  1790  her  total  population 
was  320,000,  distributed  over  eighteen  counties,  9000  square 
miles  in  area.  Baltimore  numbered  13,500  people;  Annap- 
olis was  the  second  city  in  importance.  The  population  of 
the  country  districts  was  located  chiefly  along  the  river 
courses,  and  grain  and  tobacco  culture  were  the  most  impor- 
tant pursuits.  A  keen  rivalry  for  industrial  supremacy  ex- 
isted between  Maryland  and  her  sister  States.  By  1794  she 
had  become  the  second  State  in  the  Union  in  respect  to  her 
export  trade.  Baltimore  became  transformed  from  a  large 
town  to  the  first  port  of  the  United  States  for  grain,  grain 

1  The  coins  were  various  and  circulated  according  to  weight : 
Johannes,  half-johannes,  moidores,  English  guineas,  French  guineas, 
doubloons,  Spanish  pistoles,  French  milled  pistoles,  Arabian 
chequins,  English  milled  crowns,  other  English  milled  silver,  French 
silver  crowns,  Spanish  milled  pieces  of  eight,  and  other  Spanish, 
French,  German  and  Portuguese  gold  and  silver  coins.  (Scharf, 
History  of  Maryland,  Vol.  II,  p.  478.) 

»  Cf.  Scharf,  Western  Maryland,  p.  538. 


The  Beginning,  1790-1810.  13 

products  and  tobacco.1  The  continental  wars  created  an 
unusual  demand  for  American  breadstuffs,  and  likewise  a 
large  part  of  the  European  carrying  trade  devolved  upon 
American  boats.  In  this  traffic  Baltimore  became  a  center, 
and  the  Baltimore  "Clipper,"  through  its  superior  sailing 
qualities,  became  the  chief  instrument.* 

Baltimore  was  the  natural  entrepot  for  the  large  extent  of 
country  embracing  Maryland,  Delaware,  Western  Pennsyl- 
vania, Southwestern  New  York,  the  Ohio  region  and  parts 
of  Virginia.  To  maintain  this  trade  against  her  rivals,  New 
York,  Philadelphia  and  Alexandria,  communication  had  to 
be  made  as  easy  and  inexpensive  as  possible.  This  neces- 
sitated the  improvement  and  extension  of  roads  and  the 
building  of  bridges.  Each  session  of  the  Assembly  was  be- 
sieged with  petitions  for  internal  improvements  of  one  sort 
or  another,  having  for  their  object  the  development  of  the 
counties  and  the  advancement  of  agricultural  interests.  In 
1785,  for  example,  there  were  thirteen  State  roads  proposed, 
aggregating  504  miles,  the  estimated  cost  of  which  was 
£20,800.  The  activity  along  all  lines  of  industry  was  intense, 
and  the  available  resources  of  the  State  were  being  strenu- 
ously developed.  It  was  at  this  time  that  the  beneficial  in- 
fluence of  banks  in  other  places  was  brought  prominently  to 
the  public  attention,  and  this  method  was  adopted  to  assist 
in  Maryland's  advancement. 

3.  Source  of  Maryland  Banking  Ideas. 
The  idea  of  great  national   banks  was   a  familiar  one 
throughout  the  last  century.     The  banks  of  Venice,  Amster- 

1  Table  showing  growth  of  Maryland's  export  trade  : 

1791,    12,239,691 1795,    $5,811,380 

1799,     16,299,609 1800,     12,264,331 

I8o3i       5,078,062 1805,     10,859,480 

1807,     14,298,984 1 8 10,       6,489,018 

Pitktn's  Statistical  View. 

*  Maryland  Tonnage  (Pitkin) : 

1793,    127,300 1794,    $53,ooo 

1795,      66,000 1797,       80,100 

1799,     109,600 1800,     112,400 


14  History  of  State  Banking  in  Maryland. 

dam,  of  France,  England,  Ireland  and  Scotland  were  the 
chief  representatives  of  this  class,  and  they  had  acquired 
world-wide  fame.  This  same  idea  of  a  great  national  bank 
for  each  State,  whether  established  to  assist  the  government 
directly  or  simply  for  general  economic  purposes,  was 
adopted  in  America,  and  the  Bank  of  North  America  was 
chartered  by  the  Continental  Congress  in  1781  to  help  it  in 
its  financial  difficulties.  Alexander  Hamilton  considered 
that  it  had  forfeited  its  place  by  accepting  a  charter  from  the 
State  of  Pennsylvania,  and  accordingly  he  proposed  in  its 
stead  the  first  Bank  of  the  United  States.1  After  sovereignty 
and  independence  had  been  won,  it  was  natural  that  the  indi- 
vidual States  should  proceed  along  the  same  line,  and  ac- 
cordingly single  State  banks  were  established,  chiefly  for 
general  economic  reasons,  in  Massachusetts  (1784),  New 
York  (1784),  and  Maryland  (1790). 

The  Scotch  banking  system,  through  the  writings  of  Adam 
Smith,  Sir  James  Steuart  and  Montefiore,  exercised  more 
influence  than  any  other  system  upon  the  form  and  character 
of  organization  of  early  Maryland  banks.  The  favorable 
criticisms  by  Smith,2  Steuart3  and  Montefiore4  upon  the 
Scotch  system  did  much  to  alleviate  the  prejudice  against 
banks,  and  they  acquainted  the  people  generally  with  the 
leading  features  of  a  successful  system.  When  banks  began 
to  be  earnestly  discussed  in  Maryland  about  1790,  the  Scotch 
system  received  the  greatest  amount  of  attention,  owing,  no 
doubt,  to  greater  familiarity  with  it  through  the  economists 
just  mentioned.5 

1  Hamilton's  report  on  a  National  Bank,  Dec.  13,  1790. 

2  Wealth  of  Nations,  Vol.  I,  pp.  296  ff.     (Bohn  ed.) 
8  Pol.  Econ.,  Vol.  II,  Bk.  XIV,  ch.  3. 

4  Commercial  Dictionary,  Vol.  I,  p.  235-6. 

0  The  following  passages,  previously  referred  to  were  fre- 
quently quoted  (cf.  Md.  Journal  and  Baltimore  Advertiser,  Dec.  ^ 
and  17,  1784;  Observations  on  an  act  to  establish  a  Bank,  Annap., 
1805)  :  "In  countries  where  trade  and  industry  are  in  their  infancy, 
credit  must  be  little  known,  and  they  who  have  solid  property  find 
the  greatest  difficulty  in  turning  it  into  money,  without  which  indus- 


The  Beginning,  1790-1810.  15 

Following  are  some  of  the  more  important  points  of  simi- 
larity to  the  Scotch  system  which  were  adopted  in  Mary- 
land: Most  of  the  early  Scotch  banks  were  originally  pri- 
vate copartneries;  this  system  was  usually  followed  in  Mary- 
land until  1817,  when  it  was  prohibited  by  law  in  order  to 
prevent  the  increase  of  banking  companies. 
•  The  large  extension  of  branch  banking  is  a  distinctive 
feature  of  the  Scotch  system.  This  principle  was  introduced 
into  Maryland  in  1804,  but  it  has  received  comparatively 
little  development.  No  bank  in  Maryland  has  had  more 
than  two  branches  performing  a  regular  banking  business, 
and  but  a  limited  number  have  had  branches  at  all;  these 
were  organized  early.  Several  attempts  at  a  broad  exten- 
sion of  the  system  were  not  carried  through.'''  Perhaps  on 
this  account  outlying  agricultural  districts  were  developed 

try  cannot  be  carried  on,  and  consequently  the  whole  plan  of 
improvement  is  disappointed.  Under  such  circumstances  it  is  proper 
to  establish  a  bank  upon  the  principles  of  private  credit;  this  bank 
must  issue  upon  land  and  other  securities.  Of  this  nature  are  the' 
banks  of  Scotland  ;  to  them  the  improvement  of  that  country  is 
entirely  owing — although  I  have  represented  this  species  of  banks, 
which  I  call  Banks  of  Circulation  upon  Mortgage,  as  peculiarly  adap- 
ted to  countries  where  industry  and  trade  are  in  their  infancy,  their 
usefulness  to  all  nations  who  have  upon  an  average  a  favourable 
balance  upon  their  trade,  will  sufficiently  appear  on  examination  of 
the  principles  upon  which  they  are  established."  (Steuart.) 

"I  have  heard  it  asserted  that  the  trade  of  the  city  of  Glasgow 
doubled  in  about  fifteen  years  after  the  first  creation  of  Banks  there  ; 
and  that  the  trade  of  Scotland  has  more  than  quadrupled  since  the 
first  creation  of  the  two  public  banks  of  Edinburgh,  the  Bank  of 
Scotland  (1695),  and  the  Royal  Bank  (1727).  Whether  the  trade, 
either  of  Scotland  in  general,  or  of  the  city  of  Glasgow  in  particular, 
has  really  increased  in  so  great  a  proportion  during  so  short  a  period, 
I  do  not  pretend  to  know.  If  either  of  them  has  increased  in  this 
proportion,  it  seems  to  be  an  effect  too  great  to  be  accounted  for  by 
the  sole  operation  of  this  cause.  That  the  trade  and  industry  of 
Scotland,  however,  have  increased  very  considerably  during  this 
period,  and  that  the  banks  have  contributed  a  good  deal  to  this 
increase,  cannot  be  doubted."  (Smith.) 

1  Md.  Laws,  1817,  ch.  156.        *  Cf.  pp.  83  and  85. 


16  History  of  State  Banking  in  Maryland. 

more  slowly  than  they  might  have  been  under  a  system  of 
branch  banking.  The  expense  of  operation  of  independent 
banks  is  greater  than  of  branch  banks,  and  at  the  same  time 
the  funds  are  managed  less  effectively  and  the  competition  is 
greater.  The  period  of  disaster  to  country  banks  following 
the  suspension  of  1812  would  probably  have  been  avoided 
under  a  system  of  branch  banking. 

Large  capitals  were  a  feature  of  early  Maryland  banks,  as 
of  the  Scotch  banks.  The  Bank  of  Maryland  had  $300,000 
paid-up  capital;  the  Bank  of  Baltimore  wished  to  be  allowed 
$9,000,000,  but  was  limited  to  $1,200,000;  $1,200,000  was  the 
capital  of  the  Farmers'  Bank  of  Maryland,  and  $3,000,000 
that  of  the  Union  Bank  of  Maryland. 

The  payment  of  interest  on  deposits  was  begun  by  the 
Farmers'  Bank  of  Maryland  in  1804,  for  the  first  time  in  the 
United  States.  This  plan  later  became  general.  The  pecu- 
liarly Scotch  feature  of  cash  credits  was  also  introduced  by 
this  bank.  In  each  case  the  issue  of  notes  was  free  and  based 
upon  general  credit,  as  opposed  to  specific  funds.  The  max- 
imum rate  of  discount  was  fixed  in  Maryland ;  in  Scotland, 
the  minimum  rate.  Maryland  banks  generally  could  loan 
upon  real  estate.  In  their  relations  with  each  other  the 
banks  were  prompt  and  exacting;  there  were  regular  and 
frequent  exchanges;  in  fact,  daily  exchanges  became  the 
practice  in  Baltimore  very  early.1  In  the  general  attitude 
of  the  State  toward  the  banks  there  was  another  similarity. 
The  charter  regulations  were  by  no  means  of  a  strict  nature 
in  either  case;  the  public  was  virtually  dependent  upon  the 
will  of  the  officers  for  proper  banking  facilities  and  good  ad- 
ministration. 

The  influence  of  the  Bank  of  the  United  States,  established 
in  1791,  was  not  great;  some  principles  of  minor  importance, 
which  will  be  noticed  hereafter,2  may  perhaps  have  been 
adopted  in  Maryland  from  its  example. 


1  Bank  of  Md.  Conspiracy,  T.  Ellicott,  p.  3. 
1  See  p.  26. 


The  Beginning,  1790-1810.  17 

4.  Early  Banks. 

The  economic  condition  of  Maryland  during  the  last  quar- 
ter of  the  eighteenth  century  has  been  briefly  described 
above.  It  will  suffice  here  merely  to  recall  the  remarkable 
industrial  development  through  which  the  State  was  passing. 
At  the  same  time  the  specie  in  circulation  was  limited  in 
amount  and  heterogeneous  in  character  and  fluctuating  in 
value.  The  State  bills  of  credit,  of  which  there  had  been 
such  a  flood  during  the  war,  were  gradually  passing  out  of 
circulation,  and  the  Legislature  persistently  refused  new 
issues.  The  circulating  medium  was  becoming  more  and 
more  contracted.  An  adequate  metallic  currency  was  too 
expensive.  Under  these  conditions  the  demand  for  State 
bills  of  credit  began  to  change  to  one  for  a  bank. 

The  first  attempt  to  incorporate  a  bank  in  Maryland  oc- 
curred in  1782,  when  James  McHenry,  Esq.,  introduced  into 
the  Senate  "an  act  to  establish  the  credit  of  a  bank"  in  Bal- 
timore. The  bill  was  considered  and  passed  the  Senate;  the 
House  of  Delegates,  however,  rejected  it.1  Nothing  further 
can  be  learned  about  it. 

In  1784  the  agitation  was  again  revived.  The  following 
advertisement  appeared  in  the  Baltimore  papers:2  "Such  of 
the  Inhabitants  as  are  desirous  of  promoting  the  establish- 
ment of  a  Bank  in  the  Town  of  Baltimore  are  requested  to 
meet  *  *  *  ,  when  proposals  for  carrying  into  imme- 
diate effect  an  institution  so  essentially  necessary  to  the  com- 
mercial interests,  not  only  of  the  town,  but  of  the  State  also, 
will  be  laid  before  them."  The  townspeople  entered  heartily 
into  the  scheme;  proposals  for  the  bank  were  immediately 
published  and  subscriptions  solicited.3  The  proposals  ex- 
plain in  the  following  words  the  advantages  that  were  ex- 
pected to  be  derived  from  a  bank:  "The  experience  of  wise 
commercial  nations  has  fully  evinced  the  utility  of  well-regu- 
lated Banks.  The  advantages  resulting  from  the  Bank  of 

1  Journal  of  Senate,  Nov.  Sess.,  1781,  pp.  20,  28  and  31. 
1  Md.  Journal  and  B alto.  Advertiser,  Nov.  9,  1784. 
*  Md.  Journal  and  Balto.  Advertiser,  Nov.  19,  1784. 

2 


18  History  of  State  Banking  in  Maryland. 

North  America,  in  Philadelphia,  have  already  been  mani- 
fest, and  point  out  to  this  State  the  evident  necessity  of  an 
institution  which  naturally  increases  the  medium  of  trade, 
promotes  punctuality  in  the  performance  of  contracts,  facili- 
tates the  payment  of  public  dues,  furnishes  a  safe  deposit  for 
cash,  aids  the  anticipation  of  funds  on  paying  common  in- 
terest, advances  the  value  of  country  produce  and  facilitates 
the  negotiations  of  the  foreigner,  while  it  promises  an  ad- 
vantage to  the  Stockholder." 

The  bank  was  to  be  styled  the  "Bank  of  Maryland,"  and 
the  capital  stock  proposed  was  $300,000,  in  shares  of  $400, 
payable  in  gold  or  silver.  Other  sections  of  the  articles  of 
association  relate  to  the  subscription  and  payment  of  shares, 
the  general  powers  and  salaries  of  directors,  and  penalty  for 
fraud.1  The  election  of  directors  might  be  made  after  150 
shares  had  been  subscribed.  In  case  the  State  by  law  made 
the  bank  notes  receivable  in  payment  of  taxes  and  other 
public  dues,  the  Legislature  was  to  have  the  right  to  examine 
the  affairs  of  the  bank  and  to  have  access  to  its  books  and 
papers.  Within  ten  days  150  shares  had  been  subscribed, 
so  that  they  were  able  to  proceed  to  the  election  of  directors. 

A  lively  discussion  was  carried  on  between  the  friends  and 
opponents  of  the  bank  until  the  matter  was  finally  decided 
by  the  Legislature.  The  merchants  of  Baltimore  favored  it. 
The  agricultural  and  speculative  elements  opposed  it;  the 
former,  because  the  short  time  of  loans  practically  excluded 
them  from  borrowing,  the  rates  of  discount  would  be  high. 
They  also  argued  that  it  would  draw  capital  from  the  coun- 
try to  the  city,  and  thus  check  improvement  and  agriculture. 
The  latter,  the  speculative  class,  preferred  State  issues.2  It 
was  objected  also  that  it  would  aid  only  a  few.  The  300 
shares  which  were  subscribed  were  distributed  among  but 
seventeen  persons. 

1  These  provisions  recur  in  the  charter  of  the  Bank  of  Maryland; 
see  p.  29. 

2  Md.  Journal  and  B alto.  Advertiser,  Dec.  7  and  17,  1784. 


The  Beginning,  1790-1810.  19 

A  petition  for  a  charter  was  presented  to  the  Senate  at  the 
November  session,  1784.  A  committee  of  the  House  of 
Delegates  reported  favorably  upon  it,  and  a  bill  was  brought 
in  to  charter  a  bank,  but  it  was  finally  laid  over  until  the  next 
session  of  the  Assembly,  and  was  not  called  up  again. 

For  six  years  no  further  attempt  was  made  to  start  a  bank 
in  Maryland.  1789  and  the  early  part  of  1790  formed  a 
period  of  considerable  depression  in  the  State.  A  revival, 
however,  began  in  the  spring  of  1790,  when  the  extraordi- 
nary demand  in  Europe  for  food  products,  resulting  from 
the  breaking  out  of  the  French  Revolution,  began  to  be  felt 
in  America.  Baltimore,  the  first  grain  and  flouring  port  of 
America,  received  great  stimulus  from  the  rapid  rise  in  the 
price  of  wheat,  and  all  branches  of  industry  were  greatly 
quickened. 

Credit  facilities  at  this  time  were  very  meagre.  An  ad- 
vance could  usually  be  obtained  upon  tobacco  after  it  had 
been  placed  in  the  warehouses  which  were  regulated  by  the 
State.  The  State  inspectors  issued  warehouse  receipts  stat- 
ing the  quantity  and  quality  of  tobacco  in  custody;  these  in- 
spectors' bills  could  always  be  exchanged  for  good  bills  in 
London,  and  they  furnished  the  medium  for  the  large  com- 
me/cial  transactions.  This  means  of  anticipating  the  return 
from  crops  was,  however,  limited,  since  the  State  undertook 
the  inspection  of  tobacco  only,  and  not  of  wheat  and  flour 
also,  which  at  this  time  exceeded  the  former  in  amount. 

As  a  result  of  these  conditions  an  application  was  made 
by  sundry  citizens  to  the  November  session  of  the  Assembly 
for  a  charter  for  a  bank  to  be  called  the  "Bank  of  Mary- 
land." In  this  case  the  petitioners  did  not  organize  a  part- 
nership under  articles  of  association  before  applying  for  a 
charter.  Perhaps  this  may  have  been  due  to  a  desire  to  pre- 
vent public  discussion  of  the  project  by  enemies  of  banks 
who  had  been  so  effective  in  preventing  the  passage  of  the 
charter  in  1784.  Very  slight  notice  of  the  bank  appears  in 
the  papers  before  it  had  received  a  charter. 

The  assistance  of  industry  and  commerce  was  stated  to  be 


20  History  of  State  Banking  in  Maryland. 

the  motive  in  establishing  a  bank.  The  bill  had  little  diffi- 
culty in  passing;  the  final  vote  in  the  House  of  Delegates 
was  fifty-one  affirmative  to  seven  negative.1  The  capital 
stock  was  fixed  at  $300,000.  Subscriptions  were  opened  in 
Baltimore,  December  10,  1790,  and  within  fourteen  days 
$200,000  was  subscribed,2  the  amount  necessary  to  be  sub- 
scribed before  the  election  of  directors  might  occur.  Dur- 
ing the  ensuing  year  this  amount  was  paid  in,  and  the  bank 
began  operations.  The  remainder  of  the  capital  stock  was 
called  in  within  the  following  four  years.  Subscriptions 
were  paid  in  foreign  gold  coins  at  6s.  or  6s.  8d.  the  pwt,  de- 
pending upon  the  fineness.3  Few  of  the  notes  of  the  Bank 
of  North  America  at  Philadelphia,  and  none  of  those  of  the 
banks  of  New  York  and  Massachusetts  had  reached  Balti- 
more at  this  time. 

An  addition  to  Baltimore's  banking  capital  occurred  in 
1792,  when  the  Bank  of  the  United  States  established  a 
branch  at  that  place  which  usually  operated  a  capital  of 
about  $500,000. 

In  1793  the  Maryland  Legislature  granted  a  charter*  to 
the  Bank  of  Columbia,  which  was  to  be  located  in  the  Dis- 
trict of  Columbia.  The  avowed  object  of  the  formation  of 
the  bank  was  to  assist  in  the  preparation  of  the  District  for 
occupancy  by  the  National  Government.  The  nominal  cap- 
ital was  $1,000,000.  It  immediately  passed  from  the  juris- 
diction of  Maryland. 

During  the  years  1790  to  1800  the  Bank  of  Maryland  was 
able  to  declare  annual  dividends  of  12  per  cent.  Its  capital 
was  far  below  what  it  might  with  ease  have  employed.  In 
1795  an  unsuccessful  attempt  was  made  to  double  this  cap- 
ital.5 As  a  substitute  it  was  proposed  to  establish  another 

1  Journal  of House  of  Delegates,  1790,  p.  34.     Md.  Laws,  1790,  ch.  5. 

*  Griffith,  Annals  of  Baltimore,  p.  128. 

8  Md.  Journal  and  B alto.  Advertiser,  April  5,  1791. 
4  Md.  Laws,  1793,  ch.  30. 

•  Griffith,  Annals  of  Baltimore,  p.  128.     Brief  exposition  of  the 
leading  principles  of  a  bank. 


The  Beginning,  1790-1810.  21 

bank,  which  might  consolidate  with  the  Bank  of  Maryland, 
upon  the  consent  of  both  parties.  This  clause  was  stricken 
out  and  an  entirely  separate  institution  received  a  charter  in 
1795  as  the  Bank  of  Baltimore,1  although  the  Bank  of  Mary- 
land became  a  subscriber  to  its  stock. 

The  petition  for  a  charter,  signed  by  sixteen  parties  and 
submitted  to  the  Legislature,  declares  that  the  Baltimore 
banks  from  the  inadequacy  of  their  capital  to  the  trade  of  the 
country,  do  not  come  up  to  the  end  for  which  they  were  insti- 
tuted, and  it  states  further  that  the  stimulation  of  industry, 
the  extension  of  commerce,  a  more  favorable  balance  of 
trade,  a  lower  interest  rate,  the  collection  of  capital,  are  ad- 
vantages invariably  following  from  the  establishment  of 
banks.2 

The  capital  of  the  bank  was  fixed  by  the  Legislature  at 
$1,200,000,  though  the  petitioners  wanted  the  limit  placed  at 
$3,000,000,  with  provision  for  increasing  it  ultimately  to 
$9,000,000,  as  the  growing  character  of  Baltimore  trade  de- 
manded more  banking  accommodations. 

Tf,e  two  banks  had  an  aggregate  capital  of  $1,500,000,  to 
which  there  were  added  by  the  United  States  branch  bank 
at  Baltimore  about  $500,000.  This  amount  could  be  very  ac- 
tively employed  in  a  town  whose  export  trade  alone  was  of 
an  annual  value  of  more  than  $9,000,000,  and  which  was 
rapidly  growing,  to  say  nothing  of  other  commercial  and  in- 
dustrial operations.  Manufacturing  was  at  this  time  ad- 
vancing apace.  A  climax  was  reached  at  the  end  of  the 
eighteenth  century.  Maryland's  total  exports  for  1799  were 
$16,300,000.  After  this  time  there  was  a  decrease,  due 
chiefly  to  the  narrowing  of  the  market  for  American  bread- 
stuffs  by  the  restoration  of  peace  in  Europe  in  1802,  and  also 
to  the  competition  of  Philadelphia  and  New  York  for  Balti- 
more's trade.  By  1803  the  lowest  point  had  been  reached; 
exports  had  fallen  to  $5,100,000;  there  was  a  general  stagna- 


1  Md.  Laws,  1795,  ch.  27. 

*  A  brief  exposition  of  the  leading  principles  ol  a  bank,  etc. 


22  History  of  State  Banking  in  Maryland. 

tion.  The  relapse  was  in  large  measure  charged  to  Balti- 
more's lack  of  banking  facilities  in  comparison  with  her  sister 
cities.1  It  was  estimated  that  $120,000  of  good  paper  was 
weekly  rejected  by  the  Baltimore  banks.  The  parties  seek- 
ing accommodation  were  compelled  to  patronize  brokers 
who  charged  them  excessive  rates.  Trade  was  thus  driven 
away.2  The  rivalry  with  Philadelphia  and  Alexandria,  Va., 
was  very  keen.  Pennsylvania  at  this  time  had  six  banks, 
four  of  which  were  in  Philadelphia,  whose  total  capital  was 
$10,000,000;  the  banking  capital  of  New  York  was  $6,500,- 
ooo,  operated  by  seven  banks;  yet  the  trade  of  these  places 
was  normally  about  the  same  as  Baltimore's.  Within  ten 
years  the  circulating  medium  of  Virginia,  Pennsylvania  and 
New  York  had  increased  about  50  per  cent.,  it  was  esti- 
mated, whereas  in  Maryland  it  had  remained  almost  sta- 
tionary.3 Baltimore  saw  Philadelphia  drawing  part  of  her 
Western  and  Northern  trade.  A  considerable  amount  of 
her  Eastern  Shore  products  were  going  to  Alexandria. 

To  assist  Baltimore  from  the  depression,  and  to  render  her 
more  nearly  equal  to  her  rivals  in  banking  capital,  the  Union 
Bank  of  Maryland  was  organized.  The  articles  of  associa- 
tion appeared  February  24,  1804.*  On  April  10  of  the  same 
year  books  were  opened  for  subscriptions  of  stock,  and  the 
amount  requisite  to  enable  them  to  proceed  with  the  election 
of  directors  was  subscribed  in  one  day.  It  began  business 
in  June,  1804,  as  a  limited  partnership  or  company,  and  it 
was  thus  the  first  bank  in  Maryland  to  begin  operations  with- 
out first  having  procured  a  charter. 

The  capital  stock  of  the  bank  was  $3,000,000,  in  shares  of 
$100,  of  which  $2,312,150  was  paid  in.  Subscription  books 
were  opened  in  the  counties,  and  500  shares  were  allotted  to 
each  county  (1000  to  Anne  Arundel)  for  subscription.  Sen- 
ators and  delegates  were  made  county  commissioners  in 


1  Federal  G azette and  B alto.  Daily  Advertiser,  Jan.  and  Feb.,  1804. 

2  Federal  Gazette  and  Baltimore  Daily  Advertiser,  Feb.  23,  1804. 
8  Ibid.  *Ibid.,  Feb.  24,  1804. 


The  Beginning,  1790-1810.  23 

charge  of  the  subscriptions.  Five  thousand  shares  were  re- 
served until  after  incorporation,  so  that  the  State,  if  it  de- 
sired, might  subscribe.  The  two  latter  measures  were  prob- 
ably taken  with  a  view  to  procuring  votes  for  the  charter, 
though  there  appears  to  be  no  evidence  that  other  induce- 
ment was  offered. 

The  articles  declared  the  liability  of  the  company  to  be 
limited  to  their  capital  stock,  but  directors  were  personally 
liable  for  dividends  declared  in  excess  of  profits.  Land, 
ships,  and  merchandise  could  be  held  only  as  security.  The 
partnership  was  to  terminate  in  1825,  unless  a  charter  was 
received  before  that  time.1 

All  of  the  banks  thus  far  established  were  in  Baltimore, 
and  were  preeminently  for  the  aid  of  its  commerce  and  manu- 
factures. The  agricultural  needs  had  not  yet  received  the 
necessary  attention.  With  a  view  to  assisting  the  farmer 
class  especially,  the  Farmers'  Bank  of  Maryland  was  organ- 
ized Jin  August,  1804,  at  Annapolis,  and  a  branch  bank  was 
located  at  Fasten,  and  later  (1807)  another  at  Frederick.  In 
addition  to  benefiting  the  agricultural  interests,  it  was  hoped 
that  it  would  also  assist  in  Annapolis  a  commercial  develop- 
ment parallel  to  that  of  Baltimore,  and  that  it  would  divert 
from  Baltimore  to  Annapolis  the  amassing  of  the  free  capi- 
tal of  the  State.  Easton,  too,  it  was  hoped  to  develop  into 
an  entrep6t  for  the  southern  part  of  the  Eastern  Shore,  and 
thus  cut  off  the  flow  of  Maryland  produce  to  Alexandria. 

It  started  as  a  private  partnership.  The  articles  of  asso- 
ciation appeared  early  in  August,  1804.  A  lively  discus- 
sion was  provoked.  It  was  urged  that  the  agricultural  in- 
terest did  not  require  and  could  not  support  such  an  institu- 
tion, and  that  the  commerce  of  Annapolis  and  Easton  was 
not  of  sufficient  magnitude  to  need  it.2  At  this  time  the 

1  Other  provisions  related  to  voting  and  the  election  of  directors 
and  are  essentially  the  same  as  those  of  the  charter  to  be  described 
in  the  next  section. 

2  Observations  on  an  act   ....    to  establish  the  Farmers'  Bank 
of  Maryland. 


24  History  of  State  Banking  in  Maryland. 

application  of  the  Union  Bank  for  a  charter  was  being  bit- 
terly opposed  by  the  friends  of  the  old  banks,  who  wished 
to  retain  the  monopoly  of  banking  in  their  hands.  The 
Bank  of  Baltimore  had  been  paying  regularly  from  10  to  12 
per  cent,  in  dividends,  and  its  stock  was  quoted  at  $500  (par 
$300).  Union  Bank  stock  was  selling  at  $8  to  $10  advance, 
though  it  was  still  unincorporated.  The  two  new  banks 
were  able  to  obtain  charters  from  the  December  session  of 
the  Assembly,  1804,  by  banding  their  forces  and  working 
for  each  other  in  the  Assembly.1 

At  Charlestown,  a  town  created  by  act  of  Assembly,  and 
which  scarcely  had  an  existence  except  on  paper,  a  private 
bank  was  organized  in  1804  under  the  title  of  the  "Fisher- 
man's Bank  of  Charlestown."  A  branch  was  placed  at  Tur- 
key Point.  The  nominal  capital  was  $1,000,000.  A  char- 
ter was  never  obtained.  It  was  largely  a  means  of  booming 
the  town.2 

The  renewal  of  the  continental  wars  in  1804  again  made  a 
market  for  Maryland  products,  and  Maryland  commerce  and 
manufacture,  which  had  sunk  so  low  in  1803,  had  by  1806 
again  almost  attained  that  degree  of  prosperity  which  was 
reached  in  1799.  The  export  trade  in  1806  amounted  to 
$14,500,000.  On  the  crest  of  this  wave  of  prosperity  the 
Mechanics'  Bank  of  Baltimore  was  chartered  in  1806  to  give 
aid  especially  to  practical  mechanics  and  manufacturers. 
The  capital  was  $1,000,000,  of  which  $640,000  was  paid  in, 
including  $94,625  subscribed  by  the  State.3 

Up  to  1807  Baltimore  and  Annapolis,  the  most  populous 
and  leading  industrial  cities  of  the  State,  were  the  seats  of 
all  the  banking  institutions.  In  the  Farmers'  Bank,  at  An- 
napolis, one  of  the  aims  was  to  aid  agriculture.  In  1807  a 
general  extension  of  banking  advantages  to  the  various 
counties  by  locating  banks  in  the  most  important  county 


1  Federal  Gazette  and  Balto.  Daily  Advertiser,  Aug.  28,  1804. 

2  Ibid.,  Aug.  7,  1804. 

3  Griffith's  Annals  of  Baltimore,  p.  179. 


The  Beginning,  1700-1810.  25 

town,  was  begun.  The  first  bank  thus  established  was  the 
Hagerstown  Bank,  in  Washington  county.  Its  capital  was 
$250,000.  In  the  course  of  a  few  years  banks  were  located 
in  nearly  all  the  counties  of  the  State. 

TABLE  OF  THE  CHARTERED  BANKS  OF  MARYLAND 
ON  JANUARY  i,  1810. 

Name  of  Bank.                    Established.  Capital**1  Capttal. 

Maryland 1790 $300,000 $300,000 

Baltimore,   ......  1795 1,200,000 1,199,250 

Union, 1804 3,000,000 1,845,560 

Farmers', 1804 1,200,000 819,575 

Mechanics',     .   .       .   .  1806  .   .   .  1,000,000 555,97° 

Hagerstown, 1807 250,000 250,000 

Totals $6,950,000 $4,9/0,355 

\.  A  Typical  Charter. 

"Ve. shall  defer  consideration  of  the  charter  for  a  moment 
to  notice  briefly  the  legal  basis  of  banking  privileges  in 
Maryland.  The  sources  of  this  privilege  were  the  common- 
law  right  and  special  charters  granted  by  the  State.  In  some 
of  the  States  of  the  Union  the  common-law  privilege  was 
from  an  early  date  restricted,  both  to  secure  the  public 
safety  and  also  on  account  of  the  granting  of  monopoly  priv- 
ileges to  special  companies.  This,  however,  did  not  occur 
in  Maryland  until  I842.1  The  two  systems  coexisted 
throughout  the  early  part  of  our  period,  though  in  1817  a 
partial  restriction  of  the  common-law  right  occurred,  when 
it  was  made  unlawful  for  persons  to  associate  for  banking 
purposes  without  first  procuring  a  charter.2  The  effect  of 
this  law  was  to  prevent  companies  with  large  capital  from 
engaging  in  banking  without  charters,  but  it  did  not  apply 
to  individuals.  Persons  issuing  notes  were  in  1831  made 
subject  to  the  same  laws  as  banks  in  regard  to  the  denomi- 
nations of  the  notes  allowed  to  be  issued,3  but  the  power  to 

1  See  p.  TOO.  2  Md.  Laws,  1817,  ch.  156. 

8  Ibid.,  1831,  ch.  317. 


26  History  of  State  Banking  in  Maryland. 

issue  remained  intact  until  in  1842  the  State  removed  it  by 
legal  enactment.1 

A  change  occurred  in  the  legal  basis  of  banking  rights  in 
1864,  when  the  National  Government  passed  a  general  law 
regulating  banks.  The  reorganization  of  nearly  all  Mary- 
land banks  under  this  law  marks  the  limit  of  our  study.  Free 
banking  under  a  general  law  was  frequently  under  debate  in 
Maryland  during  the  forties  and  fifties,  and  in  1852  a  bill  was 
introduced  into  the  Legislature  to  establish  such  a  law,  but 
its  passage  was  defeated.2 

With  this  preliminary  digression  we  will  return  to  the 
charter.  Excepting  the  charter  of  the  Bank  of  Maryland, 
the  charters  of  all  Maryland  State  banks  follow  closely  the 
form  of  that  of  the  Bank  of  Baltimore,  which  was  established 
in  1795,  the  second  bank  in  the  State.  Special  attention  was 
given  by  the  House  of  Delegates  to  the  form  of  the  charter,3 
and  it  served  as  a  type  for  the  charters  of  later  banks.  For 
these  reasons  it  is  the  better  suited  for  examination. 

Various  points  of  similarity  between  it  and  the  charter  of 
the  first  Bank  of  the  United  States  indicate  that  the  latter 
may  have  been  used  to  some  extent  as  a  model.  The  follow- 
ing points  of  similarity  may  be  mentioned: 

1.  The  system  of  voting;  the  power  of  the  majority  lim- 
ited. 

2.  Rotation  of  directors. 

3.  Personal  liability  for  debts  exceeding  a  limited  amount. 

4.  Similar  regulations  regarding  real  estate  and  trade. 
The  following  is  an  abridgment  of  the  leading  articles  of 

the  charter: 

The  location,  capital,  and  number  of  shares  were  prescribed,  and 
thirty-six  persons  were  designated  to  receive  subscriptions  of  a  stated 
number  of  shares  in  Baltimore  and  in  each  of  the  eighteen  counties. 
The  books  were  to  be  kept  open  for  subscriptions  not  less  than  three 
days  nor  longer  than  three  weeks.  Stock  subscribed  was  deemed 
the  property  of  the  person  in  whose  name  it  was  taken  in  spite  of  all 

1  Seep.  loo.  2Seep.  no. 

9  Journal  of  House  of  Delegates,  1795,  p.  25,  (Nov.  18). 


The  Beginning,  1790-1810.  27 

agreements  to  the  contrary.  A  person  was  allowed  to  subscribe  not 
more  than  twenty  shares  in  one  day,  though  if  too  many  shares  were 
subscribed,  the  largest  subscriptions  were  to  be  reduced  so  that  all 
subscribers  might  hold  some  stock.  Unsubscribed  shares  were  to  be 
laid  open  for  subscription  in  Baltimore  after  four  weeks'  notice. 

Payment  of  subscriptions  was  divided  into  two  parts,  and  the  first 
part  was  subdivided  into  thirds,  of  which  the  first  third  was  payable 
to  the  Commissioners  of  Baltimore  previously  to  the  election  of 
directors,  after  two  months'  notice.  The  directors,  when  elected, 
were  to  call  in  the  remainder  by  December  i,  1797,  though  any  sub- 
scriber could  pay  up  his  stock  in  full  at  any  time  before  this  limit 
and  draw  dividends  on  the  amount  paid  in.  Failure  to  pay  the  first 
third  forfeited  the  right  to  the  share. 

The  shareholders  were  to  elect  annually  a  board  of  fifteen  direc- 
tors who  were  to  choose  one  of  their  number  as  president.  As  soon 
as  3000  shares  had  been  subscribed  and  $150,000  paid  in  specie,  the 
election  of  directors  was  to  be  effected.  The  bank  was  allowed  to 
begin  operations  when  $300,000  had  been  paid  in  specie.  The  direc- 
tors were  empowered  to  appoint  officers,  clerks,  and  servants,  and 
to  fix  their  compensation. 

They  were  created  a  corporation  with  the  usual  powers  and  the 
following  provisions  were  to  be  the  fundamental  articles  of  its  con- 
stitution : 

(1)  The  number  of  votes  to  which  each  stockholder  was  entitled, 
was,  according  to  the  number  of  shares  he  held,  in  the  following  pro- 
portion :  one  vote  for  each  share  up  to  two  ;  one  vote  for  every  two 
shares  from  two  to  ten  ;  one  for  every  four  from  ten  to  thirty  ;  one 
for  every  six  from  thirty  to  sixty  ;  one  for  every  eight  from  sixty  to 
one  hundred.     No  one  could  have  more  than  thirty  votes.     Shares 
had  to  be  held  three  calendar  months  previous  to  the  day  of  election 
to  confer  the  right  of  voting.     Stockholders  actually  resident  within 
the  United  States  and  none  other  were  allowed  to  vote  by  proxy. 

(2)  One-third  of  the  directors  in  office  was  ineligible  for  reelection 
the  next  year ;   the  director  who  was  president  could  always  be 
reelected. 

(3)  Directors  had  to  be  citizens  of  the  United  States.     No  director 
of  another  bank  could  be  a  director  of  this  bank.    There  were  to  be 
half-yearly  dividends  of  profits.     The  stockholders  were  to  receive 
an  annual  statement  from  the  directors  of  surplus  profits  and  of  debts 
unpaid  at  the  expiration  of  the  original  credit. 

(4)  Compensation  of  the  president  and  directors  was  in  the  hands 
of  the  stockholders. 

(5)  Nine  directors  were  to  constitute  a  board  for  the  transaction  of 
business. 


28  History  of  State  Banking  in  Maryland. 

(6)  Six  hundred  shares  of  stock,  $180,000,  were  to  be  reserved  for 
the  State,  of  which  not  over  $90,000  might  be  paid  in  in  any  one  year. 

(7)  A  meeting  of  the  stockholders  could  be  called  by  sixty  or  more 
stockholders  representing  at  least  two  hundred  shares.     Ten  weeks' 
notice  of  the  meeting  had  to  be  given  and  its  object  specified. 

(8)  Neglect  to  pay  any  instalment  of  the  capital  forfeited  the  bene- 
fit of  any  dividend  having  accrued  prior  to  the  time  of  making  the 
payment  or  during  its  delay. 

(9)  Bond  of  at  least  $50,000,  with  two  or  more  acceptable  sureties, 
was  required  of  each  cashier  or  treasurer. 

(10)  The  corporation  could  only  hold  such  lands  and  tenements 
as  were  necessary  for  its  accommodation  in  the  transaction  of  its 
business,  and  such  as  were  mortgaged  to  it  as  security,  or  conveyed 
in  satisfaction  of  debts  previously  contracted,  or  purchased  at  sales 
upon  judgments  obtained  for  such  debts. 

(n)  The  corporation  could  only  deal  in  bills  of  exchange,  promis- 
sory notes,  gold  or  silver  bullion,  or  in  the  sale  of  the  produce  of  its 
lands.  Six  per  cent,  per  annum  was  the  maximum  rate  for  loans 
and  discounts. 

(12)  A  loan  of  more  than  $50,000  to  the  State  of  Maryland,  to  the 
United  States,  or  to  any  State,  or  of  any  amount  whatsoever  to  a 
foreign  State,  required  legislative  sanction. 

(13)  Stock  was  transferable  according  to  the  by-laws  of  the  cor- 
poration. 

(14)  Bills  obligatory  and  of  credit  made  to  any  person  or  persons 
were  to  be  assignable  by  endorsement ;  bills  or  notes  of  the  bank 
payable  to  bearer  were  made  negotiable  by  delivery  only. 

(15)  A  prescribed  form  of  oath  for  directors  and  cashier. 

(16)  If  the  corporation  dealt  in  any  goods  contrary  to  this  act, 
treble  the  value  of  the  goods  so  dealt  in  was  to  be  forfeited. 

(17)  If  loans  were  made  in  violation  of  the  twelfth  article,  three 
times  the  amount  so  loaned  was  to  be  forfeited. 

(18)  The  total  amount  of  the  debts  which  the  corporation  might  at 
any  time  owe,  not  considering  deposits  for  safe  keeping  as  a  debt 
within  the  meaning  of  this  provision,  might  not  exceed  double  the 
amount  of  the  capital  actually  paid  in.     Directors  under  whose 
administration  any  excess  occurred  were  made  personally  liable  for 
it,  in  addition  to  the  liability  of  the  corporation.     Directors   who 
were  absent  when  the  excess  was  created  or  who  dissented  from  the 
resolution  creating  it,  might  exonerate  themselves  by  giving  notice 
to  the  Governor  of  the  State  or  to  the  stockholders. 

(19)  The  treasurer  for  the  Western  Shore  was  to  be  furnished 
annually,  or  oftener  if  required,  with  statements  of  the  amount  of  the 
capital,  the  debts  due  to  and  from  it,  the  deposits,  the  notes  in  circu- 


The  Beginning,  1790-1810.  29 

lation,  the  cash  in  hand,  and  profits.  He  was  given  power  to  inspect 
the  books  and  accounts  of  the  bank,  so  far  as  was  necessary  relative 
to  the  public  safety  and  the  profits  belonging  to  the  State,  but  he  was 
not  allowed  to  inspect  private  accounts. 

(20)  The  State,  whenever  it  held  $66,000  stock,  was  entitled  to 
appoint  two  directors,  to  be  elected  one  each  by  the  House  and 
Senate. 

(21)  The  capital  stock  and  funds  of  the  bank  were  deemed  personal 
and  not  real  estate. 

(22)  The  bank  was  prohibited  from  issuing  notes  of  a  less  denomi- 
nation than  five  dollars. 

The  duration  of  the  act  was  limited  to  twenty  years. 

The  charter  of  the  Bank  of  Maryland,  established  in  1790, 
differed  materially  from  that  of  the  Bank  of  Baltimore.  The 
privileges  granted  were  greater,  and  there  were  no  provi- 
sions corresponding  to  the  fundamental  articles  of  the  char- 
ter of  the  Bank  of  Baltimore.  The  subscription  of  the  capital, 
$300,000,  was  not  allotted  among  the  counties.  Provisions 
regarding  the  capital,  payment  of  subscriptions,  voting,  elec- 
tion of  officers  were  similar  to  those  of  the  charter  described. 
A  committee  of  three,  chosen  quarterly  from  the  directors, 
were  to  inspect  the  accounts  of  the  bank  weekly.  The  lia- 
bility of  stockholders  extended  only  to  the  amount  of  the 
stock.  The  charter  was  perpetual. 

There  were  special  provisions  relating  to  fraud,  robbery 
and  debts.  Any  officer  or  stockholder  convicted  of  fraud, 
forfeited  his  stock  to  the  company,  in  addition  to  the  remedy 
which  might  be  had  in  the  name  of  the  company.  Forging 
or  counterfeiting  was  felony,  punishable  with  servitude, 
seven  years  or  less.  Stealing  bank  notes  was  punishable  as 
if  other  goods  of  the  same  value  had  been  taken.1  Debts  of 
delinquents  were  to  be  collected  by  sale  of  property  on  an 
issue  of  a  capias  ad  satis  faciendum,  fieri  facias,  or  attachment 
by  way  of  execution.  Such  execution  was  not  liable  to  delay 
by  a  super sedeas,  writ  of  error,  appeal  or  injunction  from  the 
chancellor,  provided  no  part  of  the  debt  was  in  dispute. 

1  Md.  Laws,  1792,  ch.  i. 


30  History  of  State  Banking  in  Maryland. 

No  limits  were  prescribed  to  the  debts  of  the  bank,  none 
to  its  issues.  It  was  not  required  to  make  an  annual  report 
to  the  Legislature,  probably  because  the  State  had  reserved 
for  itself  no  share  in  its  stock. 

6.  Some  Features  of  Early  Maryland  Banking. 

The  monopolistic  element  in  banking  was  especially  dis- 
tasteful in  Maryland.  A  clause  of  the  State  Constitution 
discourages  monopolies.1  Two  means  were  adopted  to  ren- 
der banks  of  a  public  character.  First,  the  State  reserved 
the  power  in  the  charter  to  subscribe  a  specified  amount  to 
the  capital  stock  of  each  bank.2  As  early  as  1803  the  State 
utilized  this  privilege  as  an  investment  for  its  unemployed 
funds  by  paying  up  the  amount  of  220  shares,  out  of  600 
reserved,  in  the  Bank  of  Baltimore.3  The  State  did  not 
subscribe  in  all  the  banks,  but  by  1811  some  stock  had  been 
paid  up  in  each  of  the  city  banks,  and  in  three  county  banks. 
The  State  subscribed  to  the  stock  of  no  banks  established 
after  1811.  The  maximum  reached  by  the  State  subscrip- 
tions was  $540,000.  The  revenue  which  it  yielded  ranged 
from  $30,000  to  $40,000  per  annum.4  The  amount  reserved 
for  subscription  by  the  State  varied  from  one-third  to  one- 
tenth  of  the  capital. 

In  a  second  manner  the  interest  in  banks  was  made  gen- 
eral, and  they  were  prevented  from  becoming  too  great  a 
power  in  the  hands  of  a  few.  The  subscription  of  the  cap- 
ital stock  of  the  early  banks  chartered  by  the  State  Legisla- 
ture, unless  they  had  been  previously  organized  as  part- 
nerships, was  apportioned  among  the  twenty-two  counties  of 
the  State.5  A  committee,  usually  of  three,  was  appointed  to 
receive  subscriptions  at  the  county  seat  of  each  county.  Per- 
sons non-resident  in  the  county  could  not  subscribe  until 
after  the  lapse  of  a  specified  time.  Shares  remaining  untaken 

1  Dec.  of  Rights,  sec.  39. 

2  The  Bank  of  Maryland  is  excepted  ;  its  stock  was  wholly  private. 

3  Md.  Laws,  1802,  ch.  58. 

4  Annual  Reports  of  Treasurer  for  the  Western  Shore. 

6  Cf.  Charters  of  Bank  of  Baltimore,  Farmers'  Bank,  City  Bank,  etc. 


The  Beginning,  1 790-1810.  31 

at  the  expiration  of  the  time  limit  could  be  subscribed  by 
any  one,  and  if  they  still  remained  untaken,  they  were 
offered  in  Baltimore  after  notice  given  in  the  papers.1 

The  allotment  of  the  stock  to  the  various  counties  for  sub- 
scription was,  of  course,  impossible  when  the  banks  had 
been  in  existence  as  partnerships  before  a  charter  had  been 
applied  for.  In  such  cases  their  stock  was  already  sub- 
scribed. Whenever  the  distribution  of  their  stock  was  ob- 
jectionable to  them,  they  avoided  it  by  organizing  as  a  part- 
nership before  asking  for  a  charter.  Of  the  eleven  banks 
which  had  been  chartered  in  Baltimore  before  1812,  six 
started  as  private  partnerships,  though  when  charters  were 
obtained  by  most  of  these,  their  capital  stock  was  distributed 
throughout  the  State  for  subscription.  In  1817  it  was  for- 
bidden by  law  to  organize  a  banking  company  without  hav- 
ing first  procured  a  charter.2  The  object  of  the  law  was  to 
prevent  the  rapid  increase  of  banking  organizations.  How- 
ever, by  this  time  the  establishment  of  banks  throughout  the 
counties  had  put  at  rest  the  cry  against  the  privileged  few 
and  against  the  absorption  by  the  city,  of  the  free  capital  of 
the  country  districts. 

In  1795  an  attempt  was  made  to  introduce  into  Maryland 
the  principle  of  State  participation  in  the  profits  of  banks, 
in  addition  to  the  dividends  upon  its  stock.  It  was  proposed 
that  one-half  of  the  excess  of  the  profits  of  the  Bank  of  Balti- 
more, over  10  per  cent,  per  annum  should  be  paid  to  the 
State.3  A  lengthy  discussion  over  it  was  provoked  in  the 
Legislature,  but  it  was  finally  rejected,  perhaps  to  compen- 
sate for  the  refusal  of  the  Legislature  to  grant  as  great  privi- 
leges as  were  asked  for. 

The  right  to  issue  promissory  notes  to  circulate  as  money 

1  In  the  same  spirit,  if  too  much  was  subscribed,  the  largest  sub- 
scriptions were  reduced  in  favor  of  the  smallest,  so  that  each  sub- 
scriber might  have  at  least  one  share.     Cf.  p.  27. 

2  Md.  Laws,  1817,  ch.  156. 

3  This  principle  is  a  feature  of  the  charter  of  the  Reichsbank  of 
Germany,  established  in  1875. 


32  History  of  State  Banking  in  Maryland. 

is  in  no  case  specifically  granted,  inasmuch  as  at  this  time  the 
common-law  privilege  of  every  one  to  issue,  had  not  been 
restricted.1 

The  only  limit  placed  upon  the  issue  of  notes  was  that  the 
total  of  debts  which  a  bank  might  at  any  time  owe  should  not 
exceed  twice  the  amount  of  the  capital  actually  paid  in.  This 
limit  was  of  little  effect.  Only  in  one  or  two  cases  of  the 
most  reckless  banking  did  the  debts  approach  it.  The  per- 
sonal liability  of  the  directors  for  any  excess  of  debts  over 
this  amount  was,  therefore,  only  an  empty  form,  since  there 
was  little  probability  of  reaching  this  mark  in  practice. 
However,  the  introduction  of  the  principle  of  personal  lia- 
bility was  valuable,  and  the  path  to  its  future  use  was  made 
easier. 

The  clause  of  the  charter  which  required  that  the  capital 
be  paid  in  legal  money2  proved  a  very  salutary  one.  Usually 
one-fourth  of  the  nominal  capital  was  required  to  be  in  hand 
in  specie  before  operations  could  be  begun.  This  compelled 
the  banks  organized  between  1795  and  1810  to  be  founded 
upon  a  solid  capital.  Up  to  this  time  no  evidence  can  be 
found  that  the  instalments  of  capital  were  paid  with  stock 
notes. 

The  business  which  the  banks  might  engage  in  was  care- 
fully restricted  to  banking  operations  exclusively,  in  which 
were  included  the  functions  of  discount,  deposit  and  issue. 
The  holding  of  real  estate  was  expressly  prohibited,  except 
so  far  as  it  was  necessary  for  the  conduction  of  business,  and 
except  also  land  mortgaged  or  purchased  in  satisfaction  of 
debt,  or  held  as  security.  Real  estate  was  not  allowed  to  re- 
main in  the  possession  of  the  bank  more  than  three  years. 
It  was  not  forbidden  to  loan  upon  mortgage  security;  in 
fact,  in  the  case  of  the  country  banks  it  was  expressly  per- 
mitted to  loan  upon  land.  The  Mechanics'  Bank  also  was 
allowed  to  loan  to  practical  mechanics  and  manufacturers  on 


1  Cf.  p.  25. 

2  Gold,  silver,  or  the  notes  of  specie-paying  banks. 


The  Beginning,  1790-1810.  33 

property  security  up  to  one-eighth  of  its  paid-in  capital,  but 
no  loan  was  to  be  made  for  more  than  $3000,  nor  for  longer 
than  two  years.  Commercial  operations,  a  most  tempting 
field  for  Maryland  capitalists,  were  usually  especially  for- 
bidden to  the  banks. 

The  monopoly  of  banking  was  not  given  to  the  chartered 
banks,  though  they  enjoyed  an  advantage  over  unincorpo- 
rated banks  through  their  limited  liability. 

By  virtue  of  the  State's  subscription  to  the  stock  of  the 
banks,  two  means  of  inspection  of  their  operations  were  fur- 
nished. As  a  stockholder  the  State  assumed  the  right  to 
participate  in  the  direction  of  the  banks  by  appointing  a  part 
of  the  directors,  usually  from  one  to  four,  varying  with  the 
amount  of  the  State's  stock.  These  directors  had  the  same 
rights,  powers  and  privileges  as  those  elected  by  the  stock- 
holders.1 In  the  second  place,  the  annual  reports,  required 
to  be  rendered  to  the  treasurer  for  the  Western  Shore,  gave 
the  public  some  idea  of  the  condition  of  the  banks.  To  be 
sure,  the  primary  object  in  each  case  was  not  protection  of 
the  people  at  large,  but  simply  the  safety  of  the  State's  stock. 

In  1806  a  provision  was  introduced  into  the  charter  of  the 
Mechanics'  Bank  requiring  a  reservation  of  I  per  cent,  of 
its  capital  from  surplus  profits  as  a  contingency  fund.  The 
principle  became  common  by  insertion  in  other  charters,  but 
it  did  not  appear  in  all.  The  fund  was  not  applicable  to  any 
particular  sort  of  liability,  but  to  all  in  general.  It  might 
easily  have  become  an  important  safeguard  by  being  re- 
quired of  all  the  banks,  and  by  being  placed  in  the  hands  of 
a  State  officer,  to  meet  the  liabilities  not  otherwise  provided 
for,  of  insolvent  banks.  This  is,  in  fact,  the  substance  of  the 
Safety  Fund  law  of  New  York,  adopted  in  I82Q.2 

In  1793  an  act  was  passed  making  the  forgery,  or  counter- 
feiting, or  stealing,  or  knowingly  passing  such  notes  of  any 
bank  of  the  United  States  felony,  and  punishable  as  if  goods 


1  Md.  Laws,  1807,  ch.  141. 

2  N.  Y.  Senate  Journal,  Apr.,  1829. 


34  History  of  State  Banking  in  Maryland. 

of  like  value  had  been  stolen.1  This  simply  made  general 
the  application  of  the  law  passed  with  reference  to  the  Bank 
of  Maryland.2  In  1797  the  same  was  applied  to  the  forging 
of  checks  and  orders.3  Forgery  on  a  bank  was  made  pun- 
ishable by  death  in  1806,*  but  this  extreme  measure  was 
repealed  after  two  years.6  No  executions  occurred  under  it. 
The  much  milder  penalty  of  five  to  ten  years  in  the  peniten- 
tiary was  fixed  upon  in  1809.° 

In  many  respects  we  must  pronounce  these  early  ideas  of 
banking  very  crude,  yet  little  else  could  be  expected  in  the 
case  of  a  new  institution.  As  with  other  institutions,  so 
with  banking,  the  elements  were  imported,  but  the  develop- 
ment was  made  to  suit  American  conditions;  experience  was 
the  teacher.  The  nature,  functions  and  benefits  to  be  de- 
rived from  banks  were  pretty  clearly  understood,7  but  on  the 
side  of  practice,  their  experience  had  not  yet  been  sufficient 
to  lead  them  to  sound  rules  of  management.  The  law  pre- 
scribed no  security  for  notes  or  deposits,  and  practically  no 
limit  for  issues.  The  public  was  really  at  the  mercy  of  the 
bank.  The  capital  was  required  to  be  paid  in  gold,  silver, 
or  the  notes  of  specie-paying  banks,  but  no  method  of  exam- 
ination was  prescribed  to  see  that  the  law  was  complied  with. 
Contemporary  writers8  repeatedly  affirm  that  the  capital 
was  paid  in  specie  bona  fide,  and  that  stock  notes  were  not 
used. 

The  State  did  not  insist  upon  its  privilege  of  supervision 
granted  to  it  as  a  stockholder.  The  requisition  of  an  annual 
report  and  the  right  to  inspect  at  any  time  might  easily  have 
been  made  by  the  State  authorities  a  means  of  wholesome 
criticism  upon  the  banks,  if  it  had  been  properly  enforced, 
but  the  banks  paid  little  attention  to  it,  and  repeated  acts* 

1  Md.  Laws,  1793,  ch.  35.  2  See,  p.  29. 

3  Md.  Laws,  1797,  ch.  94.  *  Ibid.,  1806,  ch.  84. 

8  Ibid.,  1808,  ch.  72.  8  Ibid.,  1809,  ch.  138. 
7  See  pp.  17  and  21.  8  Cf.  Miles'  Register. 

9  Resolution  18,  Md.  Assem.,  Dec.,  1818.     Ibid.,  47,  Md.  Assem., 
Dec.,  1819. 


The  Beginning,  1790-1810.  35 

requiring  the  reports  availed  little  until  1826,  when  a  penalty 
was  imposed  for  non-compliance. 

An  annual  report  kept  the  stockholders  informed  of  the 
condition  of  the  bank.  This,  with  the  rotation  of  directors 
and  their  personal  liability  for  dividends  declared  in  excess 
of  profits,  were  almost  the  only  provisions  in  the  interest  of 
stockholders. 

Political  influence  frequently  had  much  to  do  with  secur- 
ing a  more  or  less  favorable  charter.  State  Delegates  and 
Senators  were  made  county  commissioners  to  receive  sub- 
scriptions in  the  various  counties  with  a  view  to  procuring 
their  influence  in  the  Assembly  on  the  vote  for  the  charter.2 
No  direct  evidence  of  corruption  has  been  found;  however, 
complications  with  political  parties  were  scarcely  calculated 
to  assist  in  the  formation  of  sound  banking  principles. 

7.  Practice. 

The  presence  in  Baltimore  of  the  branch  of  the  Bank  of 
the  United  States  had  a  very  salutary  effect  upon  Maryland 
banks.  The  policy  of  the  Bank  of  the  United  States  was 
always  to  restrict  as  far  as  possible  State  bank  circulation. 
This  was  accomplished  by  the  frequent  return  of  the  State 
bank  notes  received  over  its  counters.  Naturally  the  State 
banks  were  strenuous  in  their  objections  to  what  they  called 
the  oppression  of  the  "monster"  bank,  but  on  the  whole  the 
competition  was  very  beneficial  in  reducing  issues  and  in  fix- 
ing the  habit  of  daily  exchanges  between  the  banks. 

The  directors  were  usually  men  engaged  in  mercantile 
pursuits,  who  were  broadly  acquainted  in  business  circles, 
and  who  knew  the  standing  of  parties  liable  to  call  for  loans. 
To  secure  a  broader  territory  from  which  to  draw  its  patrons, 
the  Farmers'  Bank  of  Maryland  adopted  the  plan  of  having 
a  director  from  each  county,  who  might  be  able  as  an  inter- 
mediary to  extend  banking  facilities  into  his  county,  and 

1  Md.   Laws,    1826,   ch.   215,   sec.   5.      Gouge,    History  of  Paper 
Money,  ch.  6. 

2  Federal  Gazette  and  Baltimore  Daily  Advertiser,  Feb.    24,  et 
seq.,  1804.     A  Brief  Exposition,  etc. 


36  History  of  State  Banking  in  Maryland. 

who  might  also  have  the  necessary  knowledge  of  parties  of 
his  locality  asking  the  bank  for  accommodations. 

To  prevent  the  banks  from  falling  into  the  hands  of  a  few 
individuals,  a  system  of  rotation  of  directors  prevailed,  as 
has  been  mentioned.1  The  danger  in  this  was  that  a  board 
not  sufficiently  skilled  in  banking  affairs  might  be  placed  in 
charge  of  the  bank.  This,  however,  seems  to  have  been 
avoided,  since  any  diminution  of  the  percentage  ineligible 
for  reelection  was,  when  referred  to  the  stockholders,  regu- 
larly opposed  by  them,2  whereas  they  would  have  been  very 
sensitive  to  a  diminution  of  the  dividends  from  lack  of  skill 
in  management. 

The  directors,  since  they  were  usually  men  in  mercantile 
or  commercial  business,  especially  appreciated  banking  facil- 
ities and  in  many  cases  they  were  the  ones  who  most  needed 
discounts,  yet  there  can  be  no  doubt  but  that  they  enjoyed 
especial  favors  at  the  bank,  both  in  respect  to  rates  and 
amounts  of  discounts.  In  the  charter  of  the  Farmers'  Bank 
at  Annapolis  a  clause  was  inserted  which  prohibited  direc- 
tors from  receiving  discounts  on  different  terms  from 
others.3  A  second  step  was  immediately  taken  placing  a 
definite  limit  to  the  amount  of  discounts  which  directors 
might  receive.  For  the  Farmers'4  Bank  the  limit  was 
$1000  a  week ;  for  the  Mechanics'  of  Baltimore  the  total  was 
fixed  at  $9000,  renewable  at  discretion.  The  Hagerstown 
Bank  allowed  $500  a  week. 

There  was,  too,  considerable  dissatisfaction  with  the 
banks,  owing  to  the  fact  that  they  confined  their  discounts 
largely  to  a  small  number  of  friends,  and  did  not  grant  ac- 
commodations to  all  simply  on  the  merit  of  the  paper  offered. 
This  charge  was  urged  especially  in  the  early  years  of  bank- 
ing in  Maryland,  when  the  banking  capital  was  altogether 
inadequate  to  the  needs  of  the  community.  The  Bank  of 
Maryland  and  the  Bank  of  Baltimore  became  very  objection- 


1  See  pp.  26,  27  and  35.  2  Md.  Laws,  1800,  ch.  23. 

8  Ibid.,  1804,  ch.  6r.  «  Ibid.,  1807,  ch.  26. 


The  Beginning,  1790-1810.  37 

able  in  this  respect,  and  this,  in  fact,  furnished  a  strong  argu- 
ment for  the  creation  of  the  Union  Bank.1 

The  board  of  directors  for  the  transaction  of  business 
usually  consisted  of  from  six  to  nine,  of  whom  the  president 
was  one;  but  four  or  five  directors  were  allowed  to  consti- 
tute a  board  for  making  discounts  only.2  Discounts  were 
made  on  two  days  of  the  week,  and  two  acceptable  sureties 
were  required  on  each  paper.  The  maximum  rate  lawful  for 
the  banks  to  charge  on  loans  and  discounts  was  fixed  at  6 
per  cent,  per  annum.3  If  information  was  given  and  sup- 
ported to  the  satisfaction  of  the  majority  of  the  board  or 
quorum  of  directors  that  any  director  or  other  officer  had  in 
any  way  been  concerned  in  taking  usury,  he  lost  his  seat.4 
After  1806  this  provision  was  inserted  in  the  charters. 

In  respect  to  discount  time  the  provisions  in  the  various 
charters  varied,  the  country  banks  as  a  rule  being  allowed 
to  discount  for  a  longer  time  than  city  banks,  and  those  dis- 
counting on  real  security  for  a  longer  time  than  those  taking 
only  personal  security.  There  was  no  general  law  on  either 
the  time  or  rate  of  discounts,  but  after  1806  each  was  regu- 
lated by  a  clause  of  the  charter.  The  Mechanics'  Bank  dis- 
counted notes  or  bills  on  personal  security  for  120  days;  on 
property  security  the  maximum  time  was  two  years.5  For 
the  Hagerstown  Bank  the  discount  time  was  six  months.6 
In  Baltimore  at  this  time  the  major  part  of  the  loans  were 
upon  personal  security.  It  was  impossible  to  obtain  collat- 
eral for  any  considerable  portion  of  the  business.  Loans 
were  made  to  some  extent  also  upon  real  security;  in  the 
country  most  loans  were  secured  either  primarily  or  ulti- 
mately by  real  property. 

A  feature  peculiar  to  the  Scotch  banks  was  introduced 
into  Maryland  by  the  Farmers'  Bank  at  Annapolis;  this  was 


1  Federal  Gazette,  etc.,  Apr.  10,  1804. 

2  Md.  Laws,  1814,  ch.  9.  Ibid.,  1804,  ch.  61. 

8  Ibid.,  1807,  ch.  26.         *  Ibid.,  1806,  ch.  19. 
B  Ibid.,  1806,  ch.  19.         e  Ibid.,  1807,  ch.  26. 


38  History  of  State  Banking  in  Maryland. 

the  system  of  cash  accounts.  An  account  of  this  sort  might 
be  opened  on  application  of  any  farmer,  mechanic  or  manu- 
facturer for  sums  from  $100  to  $1000,  whereby  the  party 
might  draw  or  pay  in  any  sum  not  less  than  $50  at  any  one 
time,  and  on  which  settlements  were  to  be  made  semi-annu- 
ally,  the  party  drawing  cash  to  pay  interest  for  what  he 
might  owe  at  6  per  cent,  per  annum,  to  be  deducted  on  open- 
ing the  account,  and  to  be  allowed  interest  on  all  sums  re- 
turned from  the  time  of  payment.  The  party  opening  the 
account  had  to  give  good  personal  or  real  security.  The 
directors  were  not  obliged  to  lend  money  on  such  cash  ac- 
counts to  a  greater  amount,  at  any  one  time,  than  one-fifth 
part  of  their  capital.1  An  attempt  was  made  in  1804  to  in- 
troduce this  feature  into  the  practice  of  both  the  Bank  of 
Baltimore  and  the  Union  Bank.2  A  special  object  of  the 
formation  of  the  Farmers'  Bank  was  the  encouragement  of 
agriculture,  and  this  was  practically  but  another  method  of 
loaning  upon  real  security,  since  most  of  the  bank's  patrons 
were  farmers  with  little  other  available  security.  Anne 
Arundel  was  one  of  the  most  fertile  and  progressive  sections 
of  the  State,  and  therefore  one  where  loaning  upon  real  se- 
curity would  most  likely  be  successful,  since  there  land  found 
comparatively  ready  sale. 

The  practice  of  paying  interest  on  deposits  was  first  intro- 
duced in  America  by  the  Farmers'  Bank  of  Maryland.3  De- 
posits for  a  period  of  at  least  six  months  drew  interest  at  the 
rate  of  4  per  cent,  per  annum;  3  per  cent,  was  paid  on  de- 
posits drawable  on  demand.  The  directors  of  the  Farmers' 
Bank  were  empowered  to  issue  notes  on  such  deposits,  as 
they  might  judge  prudent,  up  to  the  amount  of  the  deposits. 
The  practice  of  paying  interest  on  deposits  became  general 
at  a  later  time. 

It  has  been  impossible  to  ascertain  the  amount  of  the  cir- 
culation of  Maryland  bank  notes  at  this  time.  Mr.  Blodget, 

1  Md.  Laws,  1804,  ch.  61. 

1  Federal  Gazette,  etc.,  Nov.  14,  1804.     A  Brief  Exposition,  etc. 

8  Md.  Laws,  1804,  ch.  61. 


The  Beginning,  1790-1810.  39 

in  his  "Economica,"  places  the  circulation  of  all  the  banks 
of  the  United  States  for  1804,  1807  and  1809  at  $14,000,000, 
$18,000,000  and  $19,000  ooo,  respectively.  This  is  probably 
only  an  estimate;  however,  we  may  be  safe  in  the  inference 
that  no  great  expansion  had  yet  occurred.  The  United 
States  Bank  and  its  branches  were  efficient  in  keeping  State 
bank  issues  in  check;  also  the  prohibition  from  issuing  notes 
of  a  less  denomination  than  $5,  acted  as  a  restriction  upon 
issues,  in  that  it  kept  an  amount  of  small  coin  always  in  cir- 
culation. 

It  was  usual  for  the  banks  to  try  to  maintain  an  amount  of 
cash  on  hand  equal  to  one-third  of  their  circulation.  This 
proportion  was  familiar  from  the  custom  of  the  Bank  of  the 
United  States  and  of  the  Bank  of  England.1  There  was  no 
legal  requirement  in  Maryland  fixing  the  amount  to  be  held. 

Dividends  of  profits  were  made  semi-annually.  The  di- 
rectors were  personally  liable  for  dividends  declared  in  ex- 
cess of  profits.2  Up  to  1795  the  Bank  of  Maryland  divided 
12  per  cent,  annually.  In  1804  it  divided  9  per  cent.,  and  the 
Bank  of  Baltimore  10  per  cent.3  As  banking  capital  in- 
creased the  profits  of  the  individual  banks  slowly  declined. 
In  1810,  8  per  cent,  per  annum  was  perhaps  the  average.4  In 
March,  1804,  Bank  of  Baltimore  stock  was  selling  at  $500 
per  share  (par  $300).  In  the  latter  half  of  the  year  it  dropped 
to  $400,  on  account  of  the  establishment  of  competitive 
banks.  Union  Bank  stock  at  this  time,  before  the  bank 
was  chartered,  was  selling  at  $8  to  $10  premium.5 

1  A  Brief  Exposition,  etc.,  p.  38. 

2  Md.  Laws,  1806,  ch.  19. 

3  Federal  Gazette,  etc.,  Mar.  7  and  Aug.  14,  1804. 

4  Ibid.,  Mar.  26,  1810. 
8  Ibid.,  Aug.  14,  1804. 


40  History  of  State  Banking  in  Maryland. 

CHAPTER    II.  , 

BANKING  IN  MARYLAND,  1810-1864. 

i .  A  Period  of  Expansion,  1810-1818. 

The  development  of  State  banking  in  Maryland  proceeded 
slowly  and  naturally  from  the  establishment  of  the  Bank  of 
Maryland  in  1790  with  $300,000  capital,  up  to  the  end  of 
1807,  when  the  total  banking  capital  was  $7,450,000,  includ- 
ing $500,000  in  the  branch  of  the  United  States  Bank  at  Bal- 
timore. $5,500,000  of  this  total  had  actually  been  paid  in. 
Extension  had  been  made  only  in  response  to  an  actual  de- 
mand for  increased  banking  facilities,  and  in  reality  it  had 
scarcely  kept  pace  with  the  rapidly-developing  commercial, 
manufacturing  and  agricultural  interests  of  the  State. 

From  1806  to  1810  Maryland  industries  were  in  a  very 
unsettled  condition,  owing  to  interruptions  by  the  belliger- 
ents of  Europe.  Troublesome  interference,  the  Berlin  and 
Milan  decrees  of  1807,  and  the  embargo  of  1807,  had  almost 
ruined  Maryland's  export  trade.  In  March,  1809,  the  em- 
bargo was  raised,  and  conditions  immediately  improved;  ex- 
ports jumped  from  $2,700,000  for  1808  to  $6,600,000  for 
1809.  This  period  of  prosperity  was  only  checked  by  the 
war  of  1812,  and  after  its  termination  Maryland  trade  as- 
sumed its  normal  proportions. 

This  state  of  affairs  is  reflected  in  the  banking  history. 
No  increase  of  banking  capital  occurred  during  the  years 
1806-9.  1°  1810,  coincident  with  a  revival  of  trade,  a  period 
of  rapid  expansion  began,  which  extended  over  eight  years. 
It  was  in  part  evoked  by  industrial  causes,  but  was  also 
largely  due  to  the  prospective  failure  of  recharter  of  the  first 
Bank  of  the  United  States.  The  closure  of  this  bank, 
whose  charter  expired  in  1811,  was  anticipated  in  1810,  and 
throughout  the  country  there  was  a  general  and  rapid  move- 
ment of  expansion  on  the  part  of  the  State  banks  to  occupy 
the  banking  field  which  was  about  to  be  vacated.  In  Mary- 


Banking  in  Maryland,  1810-1864.  41 

land,  however,  the  cause  of  the  organization  of  the  new  banks 
was  largely  industrial,  and  the  purely  speculative  element 
was  decidedly  subordinate. 

During  these  eight  years  banks  were  located  in  the  indus- 
trial centers  of  the  most  advanced  counties  of  the  State; 
fourteen  of  the  nineteen  chartered  during  these  years  were  in 
the  counties.  The  expansion  was  an  extensive,  rather  than 
an  intensive,  one.  There  was  no  increase  in  the  amount  of 
the  nominal  capital  of  the  old  banks;  some  enlargement  may 
have  been  effected  by  calling  in  additional  payments  on  the 
shares  when  the  entire  capital  had  not  been  paid  up.  This 
margin  was,  however,  small,  since  the  entire  capital  of  the 
banks,  with  two  or  three  exceptions,  had  been  paid  up. 

The  increase  of  banking  institutions  began  in  1810,  when 
the  Assembly  granted  five  new  charters  for  banks,  of  which 
four  were  to  be  located  in  Baltimore,  the  fifth  at  Elkton,  in 
Cecil  county.  The  Baltimore  banks  were  the  Marine,1  the 
Commercial  and  Farmers',2  the  Farmers  and  Merchants',3 
and  the  Franklin,4  and  they  embodied  a  nominal  capital  of 
$2,700,000.  All  of  these  banks  organized  under  articles  of 
association  before  applying  for  charters.  The  Commercial 
and  Farmers'  Bank  had  been  under  discussion  for  some 
time,  and  its  organization  had  been  decided  upon  in  order 
to  bring  banking  advantages  nearer  to  the  merchants  in  the 
upper  part  of  the  town.  Subscriptions  to  its  stock  were  well 
advanced,  when  notice  of  the  projected  establishment  of  the 
other  banks  was  sprung  upon  the  public  by  the  publication 
of  their  articles  of  association.  Quite  a  sensation  was  cre- 
ated by  the  suddenness  and  the  extent  of  the  new  enter- 
prises, and  efforts  were  made  to  consolidate  the  four  into 
one,  or  at  most  two.5  These  were,  however,  unavailing,  and 
the  four  banks  received  charters  from  the  Assembly.  The 
State  became  a  subscriber  to  the  stock  of  each  of  them. 


1  Md.  Laws,  1810,  ch.  66.  2  Ibid.,  1810,  ch.  68. 

3  Ibid.,  1810,  ch.  77.  *  Ibid.,  1810,  ch.  67. 

Federal  Gazette,  etc.,  Mar.  14,  19  and  23,  1810. 


42  History  of  State  Banking  in  Maryland. 

The  discussion  evoked  by  the  organization  of  these  appar- 
ently uncalled-for  banks  was  not,  however,  without  fruit. 
To  prevent  a  repetition  of  this  occurrence  the  General  As- 
sembly immediately  passed  an  act  "to  prevent  the  increase 
of  banking  companies,"  by  which  persons  were  prohibited 
from  associating  for  the  purpose  of  forming  a  banking  com- 
pany without  first  applying  for  a  charter.  Each  person  act- 
ing as  commissioner  for  such  parties  was  made  liable  to  for- 
feit $2000,  and  each  subscriber  $ioo.1  The  effect  of  this 
was  to  enable  the  Assembly  to  control  completely  the  in- 
crease of  banking  companies,  and  thus  to  enable  them  to 
check  at  the  start  the  mania  which  was  growing  apace  in 
other  States. 

Great  alarm  was  occasioned  in  the  State  in  1812,  when  it 
was  found  that  a  company  had  dared  to  organize  under  arti- 
cles of  association.  The  City  Bank  of  Baltimore  was  formed 
as  a  private  partnership  in  1811,  and  over  $800,000  of  its 
stock  had  been  subscribed  before  it  asked  for  a  charter.  In 
1812  one  was  granted  which  fixed  the  capital  at  $1,500,000, 
of  $25  shares,  of  which  4000  shares  were  reserved  for  the 
State  and  27,600  shares  were  distributed  among  the  coun- 
ties for  subscription.2  The  remainder  was  taken  in  Balti- 
more. There  is  no  evidence  that  the  penalty  for  violation  of 
the  law  was  imposed  upon  them. 

No  other  banks  were  chartered  in  Baltimore  until  1835. 
In  1813  the  monopoly  of  banking  in  Baltimore  was  conferred 
on  the  banks  then  existing.3  The  circumstances  under 
which  this  occurred  will  be  explained  in  the  next  section. 

The  banks  which  were  organized  in  the  counties  were 
largely  to  assist  the  agricultural  class,  though  manufactur- 
ing was  becoming  an  important  interest,  and,  especially  in 
the  western  counties,  mining  and  lumbering  operations  had 
already  assumed  large  dimensions. 

The  Elkton  Bank  was  started  with  the  primary  object  of 


1  Md.  Laws,  1810,  ch.  108.  *  Ibid.,  1812,  ch.  180. 

8  Ibid.,  1813,  ch.  122. 


Banking  in  Maryland,  1810-1864. 


43 


aiding  the  flour  trade  of  that  town.1  And  thus  special  cir- 
cumstances in  each  case  were  of  influence.  Between  1810 
and  1817  banks  were  established  in  twelve  counties.  Fol- 
lowing is  a  list  of  these  banks : 

TITLE.  LOCATION. 

Elkton. 


Elkton  

Farmers'  Bk.,  Som- 
erset and  Worcester 

Branch   at  ...    . 

Cumberland    .    .    . 

Somerset 

Conococheague  .    . 

Caroline 

Susquehanna  Bank 
and  Bridge  Co.  . 

Havre-de-Grace  .  . 

Westminster  .    .    . 

Branch   at  ...    . 

Planters'  Bank  of 

Prince  George's  Co.  Upper  Marlboro. 


Snowhill. 

Salisbury. 

Allegany. 

Princess  Anne. 

Williamsport. 

Denton. 

Port  Deposit. 

Havre-de-Grace. 

Westminster. 

Fredericktown. 


Centreville*.  .    .    . 
Farmers'  Bank  of* 
Frederick  Co. 
N.  and  S.  Branch 
Bank  of  Potomac* 


Centreville. 

Leonardtown. 

Frederick. 

Old  Town. 


EST. 

CAPITAL. 

1810 

$300,000 

1811 

2OO.OOO 

1814 

.... 

1811 

2OO,OOO 

1813 

200,000 

1813 

250,000 

1813 

2OO.OOO 

1814 

250,000 

1814 

300,000 

1816 

3OO,OOO 

1821 

.... 

1817 

2OO,OOO 

1817 

2OO,OOO 

1817 

100,000 

1817 

50O,OOO 

1818 

25O,OOO 

Total, 

$3,450,000 

*  Did  not  open  for  business. 

Summarizing  our  results,  we  see  that  from  seven  banks  in 
1809,  with  a  nominal  capital  of  $7,450,000,  of  which  $5,500,- 
ooo  had  been  paid  in,  the  number  had  risen  to  twenty-two, 
whose  nominal  capital  was  $14,750,000,  of  which  $8,500,000 
was  paid  in.  About  $500,000  had  been  withdrawn  by  the 
closing  of  the  branch  of  the  United  States  Bank  at  Balti- 
more. 


1  Johnston,  History  of  Cecil  County,  p.  405. 


44  History  of  State  Banking  in  Maryland. 

2.  An  Industrial  Experiment  by  the  Banks;  Recharter  and 
Taxation. 

The  period  of  duration  of  all  the  charters  granted  by  the 
State,  except  that  of  the  Bank  of  Maryland,  was  specified; 
1815  was  the  time  of  expiration  of  all  the  charters  given  be- 
fore that  date.  When  the  question  of  recharter  arose,  Mary- 
land was  in  the  heat  of  the  internal  improvement  discussion. 
The  popular  favor  of  this  policy  was  strong,  and  roads, 
bridges  and  canals  were  being  planned  on  a  broad  and  sys- 
tematic scale  to  bring  all  sections  of  the  State  within  easy 
communication  of  their  port,  Baltimore.  The  war  with 
Great  Britain  was  burdening  the  State  and  the  city  of  Balti- 
more with  debt,  so  that  they  were  unable  to  assist  the  new 
schemes  financially.  Much  private  property  of  citizens  had 
been  destroyed,  and  their  resources  had  been  otherwise 
drained  by  the  calls  of  the  State  and  city  for  loans.  It  was 
strongly  urged  to  sell  the  bank  stock  owned  by  the  State,  and 
to  invest  the  proceeds  in  the  various  road  companies,  but  the 
bank  stock  had  been  so  profitable  to  the  State  treasury  that 
the  proposition  was  rejected. 

Another  circumstance  opened  up  a  course  of  action.  A 
large  element  of  the  people  was  hostile  to  the  banks,  either 
owing  to  fear  of  their  power  or  to  personal  reasons,  or  to 
dread  of  conditions  in  Maryland  similar  to  those  in  other 
States,  concerning  the  horrors  of  which  the  periodicals  of 
the  day,  such  as  Niles',  expatiated  with  the  utmost  vigor. 
The  people  generally  agreed  that  the  banks  should  pay  to 
the  State  some  return  for  the  considerable  privileges  be- 
stowed upon  them.  Under  these  circumstances  it  was  de- 
cided to  harness  upon  the  banks  the  construction  of  some  of 
the  new  roads  in  return  for  the  continuation  of  their  expiring 
charters.  This  was  by  no  means  the  first  attempt  to  tax  the 
banks.  Annually,  excepting  one  year,  from  1804  on,  bills 
had  been  introduced  for  this  purpose,  but  had  met  opposi- 
tion in  one  or  other  chamber  of  the  Assembly. 

Early  in  1813  there  was  passed  an  act  "to  incorporate  a 
company  to  make  a  turnpike  road  leading  to  Cumberland, 


Banking  in  Maryland,  1810-1864.  45 

and  for  the  extension  of  the  charters  of  the  several  banks  in 
this  State,  and  for  other  purposes."1  By  this  act  the  char- 
ters of  all  the  banks  in  the  State  were  extended  to  November 
I,  1835,  upon  two  conditions — first,  that  the  banks  of  Balti- 
more and  of  Washington  county  subscribed  for  as  much 
stock  as  would  raise  a  fund  necessary  and  sufficient  to  com- 
plete the  road  to  Cumberland;  secondly,  that  all  the  banks 
of  the  State  paid  annually  during  the  continuation  of  their 
charters  under  this  act  $20,000  into  the  treasury,  to  be  used 
as  a  fund  for  the  support  of  county  schools,  and  to  be  di- 
vided equally  among  the  counties.  Subscription  to  the  road 
stock  and  contribution  to  the  school  fund  were  to  be  made  in 
proportion  to  capital  actually  paid  in,  or  that  might  be  paid 
in  from  year  to  year.  The  State  pledged  itself  to  impose  no 
other  tax  during  the  continuation  of  the  act.  Managers  for 
the  road  company  were  to  be  chosen  by  the  banks  from  their 
stockholders  at  the  rate  of  one  manager  for  every  $25,000 
of  stock  subscribed,  though  each  bank  subscribing  was  al- 
lowed to  appoint  one  manager.  The  charters  of  banks  not 
complying  with  the  terms  of  this  act  were  not  extended. 
Unless  the  banks  expressed  their  agreement  to  it  before 
October  i,  1813,  it  was  to  cease  to  be  effective. 

The  banks  did  not  agree  to  the  proposition,  but  certain 
adjustments  were  made  and  embodied  in  a  supplement  to  the 
preceding  act,  which  passed  the  Assembly  at  the  December 
session  of  i8i32  and  received  the  approbation  of  the  banks. 

The  leading  points  of  difference  between  the  two  acts 
were: 

1.  The  number  of  banks  subscribing  to  the  road  was  in- 
creased.    It   now    included   the   banks   of   Baltimore,   the 
Hagerstown,  the  Conococheague  and  the  Cumberland  Bank 
of  Allegany. 

2.  The  president  and  directors,  for  the  time  being,  of  these 
banks  were  specifically  incorporated  "The  President,  Man- 
agers and  Company  of  the  Cumberland  Turnpike  Road." 

3.  The  charters  of  the  banks  were  continued  to  January  i, 
1835- 

1  Md.  Laws,  1812,  ch.  79.  2  Md.  Laws,  1813,  ch.  122. 


46  History  of  State  Banking  in  Maryland. 

4.  The  annual  tax  of  $20,000  for  the  school  fund,  appor- 
tioned among  all  the  banks  of  the  State,  was  changed  to  a 
tax  of  twenty  cents  on  the  hundred  dollars  of  capital  paid  in, 
or  paid  in  thereafter.     This  provision  was  to  come  into  ope- 
ration January  I,   1815.     The  banks  could  exempt  them- 
selves from  this  tax  by  paying  to  the  treasurer  before  Jan- 
uary i,  1816,  $200,000. 

5.  The  fund  was  pledged  for  the  establishment  of  a  gen- 
eral system  of  free  schools  throughout  the  State,  and  was 
to  be  equally  divided  among  the  counties.     This  fund  was 
to  be  kept  separate  from  the  general  funds  of  the  State,  and 
was  to  be  invested,  together  with  the  dividends  from  it,  in 
the  shares  reserved  for  the  State  in  the  Commercial  and 
Farmers'  and  the  Mechanics'  Banks  of  Baltimore,  and  an 
annual  report  thereof  to  the   General   Assembly  was  re- 
quired.    The  road  became  the  property  of  the  banks. 

Banks  accepting  these  provisions  were  continued  until 
1835;  those  neglecting  them  forfeited  their  charters.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  State  pledged  itself  to  the  banks  to  im- 
pose upon  them  no  other  tax  during  the  continuation  of  this 
act,  and  to  the  banks  of  Baltimore  it  promised  to  grant  a 
charter  to  no  other  banking  institution  to  be  established  in 
the  city  or  precincts  of  Baltimore  before  January  I,  1835. 

The  banks  did  not  regard  the  compulsion  to  subscribe  the 
road  stock  as  a  very  serious  burden.  It  was  expected  that 
the  tolls  would  be  of  considerable  amount,  and  that  after  a 
few  years  the  stock  would  be  a  valuable  resource.  All  the 
banks  of  the  State  agreed  to  the  act  within  the  specified  time 
limit  or  shortly  thereafter,  and  were  absolved  from  the  pen- 
alty of  forfeiture  of  charter.1 

This  same  idea  was  frequently  acted  upon  thereafter.  In 
1821  the  banks  expressed  their  willingness  to  undertake  the 
construction  of  the  Boonsborough  and  Hagerstown  turn- 
pike road.  The  president  and  directors  for  the  time  being 


1  Md.  Laws,   1816,  ch.  99.     Ibid.,  1815,  ch.  167.     Ibid.,  1818,  ch. 
147.     Ibid.,  1821,  ch.  131. 


Banking  in  Maryland,  1810-1864.  47 

of  the  banks  of  Baltimore  (except  the  City  Bank)  and  of  the 
Hagerstown  Bank  were  accordingly  incorporated  the 
Boonsborough  Turnpike  Road  Company.1  In  return  the 
charters  of  the  banks  which  complied  were  extended  to  1845. 
The  tax  of  twenty  cents  on  the  hundred  dollars  of  capital 
paid  in  was  continued,  and  the  pledge  of  the  State  to  impose 
no  further  taxation  during  the  continuation  of  the  act  was 
renewed,  as  well  as  the  one  to  charter  no  new  banks  in  Bal- 
timore or  its  precincts  during  the  continuation  of  the  act. 
Release  from  the  school  fund  tax  could  be  obtained  by  pay- 
ment to  the  treasurer  of  $100,000  before  January  i,  1823. 
In  other  respects  the  act  was  like  the  one  incorporating  the 
Cumberland  Turnpike  Road  Company. 

Likewise  in  1827  the  charters  of  the  Farmers'  Bank  and 
its  branches,  the  Farmers'  and  Mechanics'  Bank  of  Frederick 
County,  and  its  branch,  and  the  Frederick  County  Bank  were 
extended  to  January  I,  1845,  on  condition  that  they  sub- 
scribe $10,000  each  to  the  Frederick  and  Harper's  Ferry 
road,  or  to  one  of  several  other  roads  mentioned.2  The  Sus- 
quehanna  Bank  and  Bridge  Company  was  incorporated  to 
build  a  bridge  over  the  Susquehanna,  with  the  privilege  of 
doing  a  banking  business  with  one-half  its  funds.3  The 
Washington  County  Bank  was  given  a  charter  in  1831,  on 
condition  that  it  subscribed  $10,000  to  the  Williamsport  and 
Hagerstown  road.4  In  other  cases  the  banks  subscribed  of 
their  own  choice.  The  Baltimore  and  Havre-de-Grace,5  the 
Monocacy  and  Frederick,6  the  Rockville  and  Washington7 
road  companies  and  others  received  aid  in  this  manner.  The 
Commercial  Bank  had  the  privilege  of  investing  $300,000  in 
steamers  which  should  trade  with  Baltimore.8  Investment 
in  the  various  improvement  schemes  was  very  common,  but 
the  incorporation  of  banks  as  road-constructing  companies 

1  Md.  Laws,  1821,  ch.  131.     2  Ibid.,  1824,  ch  92.     Ibid.,  1827,  ch.  42. 
3  Ibid.,  1814,  ch.  66.     *  Ibid.,  1829,  ch.  198.     Ibid.,  1831,  ch.  133. 

6  Ibid.,  1814,  ch.  69.     e  Ibid.,   1829,  ch.  35. 

7  Ibid.,  1827,  ch.  42.  Ibid.,  1828,  ch.  119.   Ibid.,  1829,  ch.  198. 

8  Ibid.,  1835,  ch.  289. 


48  History  of  State  Banking  in  Maryland. 

is  rather  a  novel  feature.     The  effect  of  investments  of  this 
sort  upon  the  banks  will  be  discussed  in  a  later  section.1 

The  idea  of  a  tax  on  bank  stock  to  raise  a  school  fund  was 
not  new  in  1812.  In  1810  a  bill  to  tax  canal,  road  and  bank- 
ing corporations  for  this  purpose  passed  the  House  of  Dele- 
gates, but  was  defeated  in  the  Senate.2  The  tax  on  bank 
stock  laid  by  the  law  of  1813,  chapter  122,  continued  in  force 
until  1863,  and  yielded  a  fund  varying  in  amount  from  $30,- 
ooo  to  $40,000  per  annum.  No  other  tax  was  imposed  up 
to  1835,  at  which  time  the  act  expired. 

3.  Suspension  of  1814.. 

The  suspension  of  1814  was  a  general  one,  but  the  causes 
leading  up  to  it  were  of  especial  force  in  Maryland.  The 
demand  for  specie  was  increased  by  the  commercial  restric- 
tions caused  by  the  blockade  of  United  States  ports.  Mary- 
land exports,  from  $6,833,000  in  1811,  dropped  to  $3,787,000 
in  1813,  and  $248,434  in  1814.  The  sudden  drop  in  Mary- 
land's exports  of  produce  in  1814  necessitated  other  modes 
of  payment  for  her  imports.3  The  Eastern  States,  too,  had 
imported  largely,  and  specie  for  repayment  was  required. 
The  enlargement  of  the  bank  circulation  in  the  Middle 
States  had  given  the  Eastern  States  an  advantage;  paper 
money  replaced  the  specie  circulation.  Excessive  issues 
were  called  forth  by  the  loans  to  the  National  and  State  Gov- 
ernments, which  were  necessitated  by  the  war.  The  Eastern 
States  were  unfavorable  to  the  war,  and  in  great  measure 
they  withheld  subscriptions  to  the  loans,  so  that  the  burden 
was  thrown  upon  the  Middle  States,  and  especially  upon  the 
cities,  Baltimore,  Philadelphia  and  New  York.  Of  the 
United  States  loans  of  1812,  1813  and  1814,  more  than 
$2,500,000  was  subscribed  in  Baltimore.4  In  addition  to 
this,  the  banks  loaned  the  State  over  half  a  million  dollars  in 

I  See  p.  60,  et  seq. 

II  Journal  of  House  of  Delegates,  1810,  p.  37. 

8  Cf.  An  Address  by  the  Directors  of  the  Banks  of  Phila.,  Aug. 
30,  1813. 
4  Niles,  May,  1812,  and  Apr.  3,  1813,  and  1814. 


Banking  in  Maryland,  1810-1864.  49 

1813  and  I8I4.1  The  restrictions  upon  the  banks  from  mak- 
ing large  loans  to  any  State  without  the  consent  of  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly2  were  removed,  and  the  banks  were  allowed 
to  loan  Maryland  up  to  the  amount  of  their  actual  capital, 
and  to  the  United  States  up  to  one-third  of  this  amount.3 
In  addition  to  this,  the  loans  of  private  individuals  to  the 
State  and  to  Baltimore  fell  to  considerable  extent  upon  the 
banks. 

The  transmission  abroad  in  1811  of  over  seven  million  dol- 
lars which  had  been  invested  in  the  Bank  of  the  United 
States,  had  perhaps  some  influence.  The  expansion  of  the 
State  bank  currency  to  fill  up  the  place  made  vacant  by  the 
expiring  bank  was  of  much  greater  importance.  The  rapid 
multiplication  of  banks  and  the  loss  of  the  centralizing  in- 
fluence of  the  United  States  Bank  almost  destroyed  entirely 
the  degree  of  consolidation  and  unity  which  had  been  the 
effect  of  the  creation  of  the  United  States  Bank.  The  banks 
of  the  leading  commercial  cities  now  exercised  this  function, 
but  more  weakly,  since  the  number  of  centers  was  larger  and 
the  relations  to  the  other  banks  were  not  so  stringent.  Each 
bank  now  dared  to  issue  more  than  formerly;  the  facility  of 
getting  discounts  was  increased,  and  the  demand  for  them 
became  greater.  There  was  an  abundance  of  paper  money, 
but  little  gold  and  silver ;  prices  were  high.4  No  resistance 
could  be  offered  to  the  heavy  demand  for  specie  from  the 
Eastern  States  and  Canada,  and  the  South  and  Southwest, 
which  had  been  remitting  in  specie  to  the  Middle  States, 
"closed  the  profitless  traffic."  The  alternatives  were  a  re- 
striction of  discounts  and  circulation  or  suspension  of  specie 
payments.  The  following  incomplete  returns  illustrate  these 
facts  :5 


1  Reports  of  Treas.  for  Western  Shore  of  Md.  *  See  p.  28. 

8  Md.  Laws,  1812,  ch.  i,  June  session.      Ibid.,    1813,  ch.  22,  May 
session.     Ibid.,  1814,  ch.  70.  *  Cf.  Niles. 

6  Gallatin,  Considerations  on  the  Currency,  etc.,  p.  101. 


50  History  of  State  Banking  in  Maryland. 


NO.   OF 
BANKS. 


MARYLAND.  CAPITAL.  CIRCULATION. 


Jan.  i,  iSn, 

6 

$4,895,202 

$2,730,000 

$850,000 

Jan.  i,  1815, 

17 

7,832,002 

3,97O,OOO 

740,000 

Jan.  i,  1816, 

20 

8,406,782 

5,615,000 

760,000 

Political  conditions  determined  the  turn  of  affairs  at  this 
time.  During  1814  the  British  army  directed  its  operations 
against  the  Middle  and  Southern  States  especially;  in  Au- 
gust Baltimore  was  threatened.  Such  alarm  was  occasioned 
that  the  banks  suspended  and  had  their  specie  conveyed  to 
places  of  safety.  Philadelphia  and  New  York  banks  imme- 
diately followed.  The  condition  of  Maryland  banks,  while 
not  strong,  was  by  no  means  desperate,  though  they  would 
doubtless  soon  have  been  driven  to  suspension,  since  debtor 
banks  in  the  South  had  ceased  paying  in  specie,  even  if  polit- 
ical conditions  had  not  made  it  necessary. 

Baltimore  bank  notes  remained  at  par  or  very  small  dis- 
count in  Maryland;  the  notes  of  the  country  banks  depreci- 
ated somewhat  more.  Immediately  after  the  restoration  of 
peace  in  1815,  confidence  in  the  bank  notes  began  to  rise. 
In  February  and  March,  1815,  Maryland  notes  generally, 
excepting  those  of  three  or  four  country  banks,  were  at  par 
within  the  State,  and  discount  at  Philadelphia  and  New  York 
was  only  2  or  3  per  cent.  Considerable  pressure  was 
brought  to  bear  on  the  banks  at  this  time  to  resume  specie 
payments,  but  exchange  was  still  high,  and  besides  some  of 
the  country  banks  had  extended  their  circulation  to  danger- 
ous limits.  Altogether  they  were  unwilling  to  resume. 

Congress,  at  the  suggestion  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treas- 
ury to  force  a  return  to  specie  payments,  authorized  the 
establishment  of  the  second  Bank  of  the  United  States,  and 
it  also  directed  that  after  February  20,  1817,  the  public  rev- 
enue should  be  received  in  "lawful  currency,"  i.  e.,  specie, 
treasury  notes,  United  States  bank  notes  and  notes  of  other 
specie-paying  banks.  The  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  was 
ordered  to  take  such  measures  as  were  necessary  to  cause  as 


Banking  in  Maryland,  1810-1864.  51 

soon  as  possible  the  payment  of  all  debts  due  to  the  United 
States  in  lawful  money.  Accordingly,  after  October  i,  1816, 
only  lawful  money  was  received  by  the  government  for  debts 
less  than  five  dollars. 

The  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  endeavored  to  secure  the 
agreement  of  all  the  banks  to  resume  February  20,  1817. 
Maryland  and  Pennsylvania  banks  objected,  and  insisted 
upon  July  i,  1817,  instead,  as  the  earliest  date  at  which  they 
would  be  prepared  to  resume.  However,  on  February  i, 
1817,  at  a  meeting  of  representatives  of  the  banks  of  New 
York,  Philadelphia,  Baltimore  and  Richmond,  held  in  Phil- 
adelphia, it  was  decided  to  accede  to  the  request  of  the  Sec- 
retary of  the  Treasury  and  resume  February  20,  under  cer- 
tain provisions.  The  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  accepted  the 
conditions,  and  accordingly  agreed  not  to  withdraw  the 
public  deposits  from  the  State  banks  before  July  i,  1817,  or 
before  the  discounts  of  the  United  States  Bank  reached 
$2,000,000  at  both  New  York  and  Philadelphia  and  $1,500,- 
ooo  at  Baltimore.1  Also  the  Bank  of  the  United  States 
promised  to  aid  the  State  banks  with  its  resources  to  any 
reasonable  extent.  This  compact  and  its  support  by  the 
Bank  of  the  United  States  enabled  the  resumption  of  specie 
payments  to  be  made  February  20,  1817. 

Preparation  for  resumption  and  anticipation  of  the  power 
of  the  United  States  Bank  compelled  the  State  banks  to 
strengthen  and  to  restrict  issues.  This  they  did  by  a  very 
severe  curtailment  of  discounts.  In  January,  1816,  the  notes 
in  circulation  of  Maryland  banks  amounted  to  $5,615,000. 
Within  the  year  they  were  reduced  by  $2,000,000,  or  more 
than  one-third.  The  deposits  suffered  slight  diminution,  so 
that  the  restriction  of  discounts  must  have  been  at  the  same 
rate.  The  result  of  this  would  inevitably  have  been  wide- 
spread commercial  disaster,  but  the  Bank  of  the  United 
States  met  the  demand.  Within  two  months  its  discounts 
ran  up  to  $20,000,000,  and  by  October  31,  1817,  they  had 

1  Niles,  Aug.  24,  1816.     National  Intelligencer. 


52  History  of  State  Banking  in  Maryland. 

reached  $33,000,000.  The  passage  to  specie  payments, 
therefore,  caused  little  inconvenience  to  Baltimore  banks. 
Some  of  the  more  reckless  country  banks,  which  had  ex- 
tended their  circulation  too  far,  were  in  a  precarious  condi- 
tion and  were  practically  insolvent.  In  Baltimore  almost 
as  much  specie  was  deposited  as  was  withdrawn.1 

The  administration  of  the  Baltimore  banks  during  the 
suspension  was  careful,  but  the  majority  of  the  country 
banks,  becoming  irresponsible,  sacrificed  safety  to  profit. 
The  position  of  the  country  banks,  too,  was  peculiar,  in  that 
they  had  just  been  established.  Five  of  the  nine  then  exist- 
ing had  been  chartered  in  1813  and  1814.  The  deposits  in 
the  country  districts  being  relatively  smaller  than  in  the 
city,  they  were  forced  to  depend  more  upon  their  circulation 
for  profits. 

The  following  table  will  show  the  circulation  of  Mary- 
land banks  before,  during  and  after  the  suspension: 

BANKS.  CAPITAL.  CIRCULATION. 

Jan.  i,  1811,  6  $4,895,200  $2,730,000 

Jan.  i,  1815,  17  7,832,000  3,970,000 

Jan.  i,  1816,  20  8,406,700  5,615,000 

Jan.  i,  1817,  22  8,708,800  2,727,000 

Jan.  i,  1818,  22  8,708,800  1,742,000 

The  plethoric  state  of  the  currency  was  reflected  through- 
out 1815  and  1816  by  the  high  prices.  The  abundance  of 
money  was  a  matter  of  comment.  All  specie  disappeared 
from  Maryland  at  an  early  date,  and  the  very  serviceable  reg- 
ulation,2 which  prohibited  the  issue  of  notes  of  denomina- 
tions under  five  dollars,  was  of  necessity  repealed  in  1814.* 
Notes  were  the  sole  currency,  even  for  small  change,4  until 
November,  i8i7-5 

1  Niles,  Mar.  15,  1817.  2  Md.  Laws,  1812,  ch.  134.  5  Ibid.,  1814,  ch.  27. 

*  The  lowest  denomination  issued  in  Maryland  was  six  and  one- 
fourth  cents.  Niles,  Apr.  n,  1818. 

6  The  law  of  1814,  ch.  27,  was  limited  to  Nov.  20,  1815  ;  it  was  con- 
tinued in  force  by  the  law  of  1815,  ch.  220,  to  Nov.  20,  1816,  and  to 
Nov.  20,  1817,  by  law  of  1816,  ch.  267. 


Banking  in  Maryland,  1810-1864.  53 

It  is  impossible  to  find  out  the  rates  of  dividends  declared 
by  the  banks  during  the  suspension,  but  the  quotations  of 
stock  are  a  good  indication  of  its  profit.  The  following 
table  gives  the  quotations  for  Baltimore  bank  stock  for  Sep- 
tember 2, 


PAID   IN  SELLING  ADVANCE 

PER   SHARE.  PRICE.  PER   CENT. 


Maryland $300  $360  20 

Baltimore 300  350  16.66 

Union 50  63  26 

Mechanics' 15  22.50  50 

Franklin 17.50  23.50  34-39 

Commercial  and  Farmers'  25  34  36 

Marine 25  30  20 

City 15  20  33.33 

Farmers'  and  Merchants'.  45  53  i?-33 


Average,         28.19 

The  weakest  of  the  country  banks,  whose  notes  were 
greatly  depreciated,  continued  to  pay  8  per  cent. 

At  the  time  of  suspension  specie  commanded  a  premium  of 
10-12  per  cent,  in  Baltimore;  in  August,  1815,  the  premium 
had  risen  to  12—17  Per  cent. ;  by  November  it  was  19—22  per 
cent,  advance;  in  August,  1816,  it  was  14-15  per  cent,  pre- 
mium; after  this  the  premium  rapidly  declined. 

Maryland  bank  notes  fell  to  5-10  per  cent,  below  par  im- 
mediately after  the  suspension.  As  soon  as  peace  had  been 
declared  in  1815,  they  recovered  and  rose  to  2-5  per  cent, 
discount,  and  soon  stood  at  par  in  Maryland.  By  August, 
1815,  they  were  at  par  at  home,  and  at  2.\  per  cent,  discount 
in  Philadelphia  and  Richmond.  In  November  they  were  at 
3  per  cent,  discount  in  Philadelphia  and  19-20  in  Boston.2 
Nearly  all  Maryland  notes  circulated  at  par  or  small  discount 
in  Maryland  after  the  first  months  of  1815.  The  mass  of 

1  Niles,  Sept.  2,  1815.  2  Niles,  Sept.  2,  1815. 


54  History  of  State  Banking  in  Maryland. 

paper  from  other  States  rendered  the  situation  inconvenient 
and  confusing.  The  notes  of  each  foreign  bank  had  their 
rates  of  exchange,  varying  from  time  to  time,  and  with  the 
distance  of  the  place  of  issue.  The  ignorance  of  the  condi- 
tion of  many  distant  banks  and  of  the  value  of  their  notes, 
gave  rise  to  another  expense  upon  the  public,  the  note 
broker.  Their  service  was  the  purchase  and  exchange  of  the 
unknown  and  useless  notes  which  were  in  circulation,  but  the 
cost  of  this  service  was  an  exorbitant  one.  The  character 
of  the  men  who  entered  this  pursuit  was  usually  such  that  the 
evil  possibilities  of  this  office  were  carefully  developed.  En- 
deavor was  made  to  crush  them  out  of  existence  by  expen- 
sive licenses.  In  1819  Maryland  passed  a  law  fixing  the 
license  at  $500  per  annum,1  and  requiring  bond  to  the 
amount  of  $20,000  and  an  oath  to  act  without  fraud  and  col- 
lusion. However,  their  service  was  a  real  one,  and  without 
them  troubles  increased,  so  that  a  milder  law  was  soon  sub- 
stituted. 

4.    Crisis  of  1818. 

The  Bank  of  the  United  States,  immediately  after  its  char- 
ter, began  to  discount  freely  in  order  to  relieve  the  pressure 
upon  the  State  banks.  Within  eight  months  after  the  re- 
sumption the  discounts  of  the  bank  reached  $33,000,000. 
The  Baltimore  branch  discounted  very  freely,  and  at  this 
place  alone  the  discounts  were  more  than  $8,000,000.  An 
inflation  was  produced  which  unchartered  companies  did 
much  to  increase.  The  exact  amount  of  influence  upon  the 
inflation  from  unchartered  banks  cannot  be  estimated.  The 
usual  widely  speculative  tendencies  which  accompany  an  in- 
flation of  the  currency  were  present. 

The  condition  of  the  Bank  of  the  United  States  became  a 
matter  of  great  concern,  and  it  was  feared  that  the  reckless 
administration  of  the  branch  at  Baltimore  would  bring  it 
into  further  peril.  Its  notes  in  circulation  amounted  to 
$8,000,000;  its  specie  was  low,  never  more  than  one-eleventh 

1  Md.  Laws,  1818,  ch.  210. 


Banking  in  Maryland,  1810-1864.  55 

of  its  cash  liabilities.  Under  these  circumstances  a  policy 
of  restriction  was  decided  upon  July  10,  1818.  Before  Jan- 
uary, 1820,  the  discounts  of  the  bank  had  been  reduced  $10,- 
000,000.  The  State  banks  necessarily  followed  its  lead. 
The  Baltimore  city  banks  did  not  extend  their  circulation  to 
any  considerable  degree  during  the  later  months  of  1817  and 
the  first  half  of  1818.  The  restriction  which  had  been  begun 
before  the  resumption  of  specie  payments  was  continued  dur- 
ing the  time  of  the  inflation.  The  large  discounts  of  the  Balti- 
more branch  bank  rendered  this  the  easier.  During  the 
year  1817  the  circulation  of  the  Baltimore  banks  was  re- 
duced from  $2,727,000  to  $1,742,000,  or  about  40  per  cent. 

The  report  became  widely  spread  early  in  1818  that  the 
Baltimore  banks  were  in  a  critical  condition,  and  that  a  sus- 
pension of  specie  payments  was  imminent.  The  report  prob- 
ably originated  in  some  knowledge  of  the  losses  which  Bal- 
timore banks  were  then  undergoing,1  though  the  full  extent 
of  these  losses  was  not  yet  apprehended.  During  the  year 
1817  the  cash  liabilities  had  been  diminished  from  $4,835,000 
to  $3,440,000.  The  banks  regarded  themselves  as  sound.2 
The  wide  extension  of  discounts  at  the  Baltimore  branch 
bank  had  likely  created  the  impression  that  all  Baltimore 
banks  had  out  much  paper.  In  fact,  there  seems  to  have 
been  little  danger  of  a  suspension.  The  condition  of  some 
of  the  country  banks  was  very  different.  Most  of  them  were 
solvent,  but  at  least  three  had  practically  never  redeemed 
their  notes  in  specie  since  1814.  The  weakest  ones  were  the 
Elkton,  Somerset,  Somerset  and  Worcester,  Cumberland, 
and  Susguehanna  Bank  and  Bridge  Company. 

The  irregularities  in  the  administration  of  the  Baltimore 
branch  bank  were  upon  discovery  immediately  examined 
into,  and  the  amount  of  its  discounts  was  decidedly  lessened. 
Baltimore  State  banks  continued  their  restriction  more  grad- 
ually throughout  1818,  1819,  1820  and  1821.  For  the  items 
of  their  cash  liabilities,  see  Appendix,  p.  139. 

1  See  pp.  60  and  67.  *  Niles,  Dec.  27,  1817. 


56  History  of  State  Banking  in  Maryland. 


The  drain  upon  the  banks  for  specie,  caused  by  the  more 
active  demand  for  it  North,  impelled  them  to  a  policy  of  re- 
striction. The  brokers  were  always  very  sensitive  to  any 
slight  advantage  to  be  gotten  by  an  exchange  at  the  bank 
of  notes  for  specie.  Throughout  1818  notes  were  returning 
to  the  banks  for  redemption  and  their  specie  was  being 
drawn  out  for  sale  at  an  advance.  To  prevent  a  decrease  of 
the  specie  reserves,  the  Legislature  early  in  1819  attempted 
to  control  the  natural  rates  of  exchange.  It  was  made  un- 
lawful to  buy  or  sell  gold  or  silver  coined  for  a  greater  sum 
in  notes  than  the  nominal  value  of  such  notes.  The  penalty 
for  violation  was  forfeiture  of  double  the  sum  of  gold  or 
silver  bought  or  sold,  or  imprisonment  not  exceeding  one 
year.1  Importers  of  specie  were  excepted  from  the  action 
of  this  provision.  These  regulations,  so  far  as  they  referred 
to  the  sale  of  foreign  gold  and  silver  coin,  were  repealed  in 
1823. 2  The  law  was,  of  course,  unable  to  control  such  trans- 
actions; its  natural  effect  was  to  add  to  the  price  compensa- 
tion for  the  risk  incurred.3 

The  continued  contraction  of  Baltimore  State  banks  and 
of  the  United  States  branch  bank,  the  latter  a  more  extensive 
and  rapid  one,  produced  a  very  severe  effect  upon  Maryland 
industry.  Debts  contracted  during  the  inflation  of  1817  and 
1818  became  payable  after  the  currency  had  been  reduced. 
The  result  was  that  property  everywhere  was  sacrificed  to 
pay  for  the  speculation  and  extravagance  of  the  previous 
years.  Bankruptcies  were  common,  and  for  immense 
amounts.  The  Federal  Gazette  of  October  18,  1819,  has  six 
columns  of  applicants  for  benefit  of  the  insolvent  laws;  Niles 
for  May  5,  1821,  mentions  350  applicants.  The  low  price  of 
grain  added  to  the  troubles  of  the  agriculturists.  By  1822 
liquidation  had  taken  place,  and  the  financial  condition  of 
the  State  was  much  improved. 


1  Md.  Laws,  1818,  ch.  191.  *  Ibid.,  1823,  ch.  147. 

3  Niles,  July  24,  1819. 


Banking  in  Maryland,  1810-1864.  57 

5.  Condition  of  the  Banks  after  the  Crises  of  1814  and 
1818. 

The  crucial  period  of  1814-20  resulted  in  great  loss  to 
Maryland  banks  and  effected  a  reduction  of  banking  capital 
both  by  the  enforced  insolvency  of  some  and  by  a  diminu- 
tion of  the  capital  of  others.  The  losses  of  nine  country 
banks  and  of  one  city  bank  resulted  in  insolvency;  other 
Baltimore  banks  were  compelled  to  reduce  their  capital 
stock. 

The  weaker  organization  of  the  country  banks,  as  com- 
pared with  the  city  banks,  has  already  been  mentioned.1 
This  fact,  together  with  the  locking  up  of  their  resources  in 
real  estate,  due  to  the  low  price  of  grain  and  consequent  agri- 
cultural depression  which  compelled  the  banks  to  take  se- 
curities in  payment  of  money  loaned,  kept  the  majority  of  the 
country  banks  from  a  permanent  resumption  of  specie  pay- 
ments in  February,  1817.  Most  of  them  resumed  tempo- 
rarily, but  were  unable  to  stand  the  strain.  They  had  issued 
proportionally  more  than  the  city  banks.  Of  the  $5,615,000, 
the  total  circulation  of  Maryland  banks  in  1816,  at  least  one- 
third  belonged  to  the  country  banks,  whereas  their  paid-up 
capital  was  less  than  one-fourth  of  the  total  capital.  At  the 
same  time  they  were  unable  to  convert  their  resources  into 
a  ready  form.  The  result  was  that  they  were  in  a  state  of 
chronic  suspension  from  1814  to  1820.  Throughout  1817-20 
their  notes  were  much  below  par,  ranging  in  discount  from 
i o  to  90  per  cent.,  so  that  even  brokers  refused  to  buy  them. 

In  February,  1819,  steps  were  taken  to  compel  these  banks 
to  pay  specie  or  forfeit  their  charters,  by  the  passage  of  an 
act2  which  provided  that  persons  obtaining  judgment  for 
debt  against  banks  might  demand  interest  at  6  per  cent,  per 
annum  from  the  time  when  payment  was  requested.  Upon 
refusal  or  neglect  to  pay  in  specie,  any  county  court  might 
order  to  be  issued  a  scire  facias  to  show  cause  why  its  charter 
should  not  be  declared  forfeited.  The  court,  after  investi- 

1  Cf.  p.  70.  *  Md.  Laws,  1818,  ch.  177. 


58  History  of  State  Banking  in  Maryland. 

gation,  might  declare  the  charter  forfeited,  and  might  ap- 
point three  commissioners  to  settle  up  the  affairs  of  the 
bank.  The  interests  of  other  creditors  were  to  take  prece- 
dence of  those  of  stockholders.  Notes  of  the  bank  were  re- 
ceivable by  the  bank  for  debt  at  their  nominal  value.  The 
commissioners  were  allowed  a  commission  not  exceeding  5 
per  cent.  Banks  which  had  paid  specie  for  their  notes  from 
May  to  October  preceding  the  passage  of  the  act,  were  ex- 
empted from  its  force  until  January,  1820.  Early  in  1820 
the  act  was  suspended  until  the  beginning  of  the  year  1821. 1 
The  suspension  of  the  act  protracted  for  a  year  the  exist- 
ence of  the  weak  banks.  At  the  end  of  1820  eight  of  the 
thirteen  country  banks  signified  to  the  Legislature  their  in- 
tention of  closing,  and  asked  release  from  the  school-fund 
tax.  This  was  granted,  but  the  banks  were  forbidden  to 
make  any  new  discounts,  and  dividends  could  be  made  only 
after  all  the  debts  were  paid.2  In  most  cases  the  directors 
closed  up  the  business,  though  three  commissioners  were 
appointed  by  the  Legislature  for  the  Cumberland  Bank  of 
Allegany  at  its  request.3  A  list  of  these  banks,  with  their 
dates  of  incorporation  and  their  paid-up  capital,  is  here 
given : 

BANKS.  ESTABLISHED.  CAPITAL. 

Elkton 1810  $110,000 

Conococheague 1813  157,500 

Cumberland 1811  107,862 

Somerset  and  Worcester 1811  90,000 

Somerset 1813  195,850 

Caroline 1813  103,057 

Havre-de-Grace 1814  132,540 

Planters'  Bank  of  Prince  George's  Co.  1817  86,290 


Total,  $982,622 


1  Md.  Laws,  1819,  ch.  154. 

2  Ibid.,  1829,  ch.  170.  Ibid.,  1820,  chs.  102,  97,  116,  190  and  189. 
Ibid.,  1824,  ch.  163.  Ibid.,  1819,  ch.  142. 

8  Ibid.,  1823,  ch.  144. 


Banking  in  Maryland,  1810-1864.  59 

It  is  very  difficult,  at  this  time,  to  obtain  any  exact  infor- 
mation of  the  particular  circumstances  attending  each  of 
these  failures.  The  banks  made  no  annual  reports  to  the 
State  Treasurer,  and,  at  that  time,  newspapers  were  not  gen- 
erally established  in  the  counties.  We  cannot  estimate  the 
loss  from  the  failure  of  these  banks.  The  liability  of  the 
stockholders  for  the  amount  of  their  shares  most  likely 
availed  little,  since  a  large  part  of  the  stock  had  been  paid 
in  stock  notes,  which,  in  case  of  failure,  were  liquidated  by 
the  return  of  the  certificates  of  stock.  Thus  all  loss  above, 
perhaps,  the  first  instalment  of  capital  which  was  required 
to  be  paid  in  specie  or  the  notes  of  specie-paying  banks,  was 
thrown  upon  the  noteholders  and  depositors.  The  accep- 
tance of  stock  of  a  bank  in  payment  of  debts  due  to  it,  was 
legalized  for  the  Bank  of  Caroline,1  and  for  the  Planters' 
Bank  of  Prince  George's  County.2  The  certificates  of  de- 
posit of  any  bank  were  also  made  a  lawful  tender  to  that 
bank  for  debt.3 

The  resources  seem  to  have  been  of  little  value  in  most 
cases,  so  that  it  is  probable  that  considerable  stock  was  lost. 
The  Bank  of  Caroline  sold  its  debts  to  the  highest  bidder.4 
On  the  other  hand,  the  Havre-de-Grace  Bank  closed  up 
creditably.  It  laid  aside  a  fund  to  meet  outstanding  notes6 
and  established  an  agency  in  Baltimore,  the  Franklin  Bank, 
for  this  purpose.6  Generally  noteholders  suffered  much  in 
disposing  of  their  notes  at  a  sacrifice  in  haste  to  realize  upon 
them  immediately  after  failure  was  openly  acknowledged. 

The  failure  of  the  Elkton  Bank  was  charged  to  a  disaster 
in  the  flour  trade  of  that  town,  with  which  the  bank  was 
closely  connected.  The  bank  had  been  very  weak  for  sev- 
eral years,  and  had  ceased  to  declare  dividends.  Though 
practically  insolvent  before,  it  failed  utterly  in  1822;  yet  it 
did  not  close  entirely  until  1830,  when  the  Legislature  pro- 

• 

1  Md.  Laws,  1824,  ch.  163.        a  Ibid.,  1831,  ch.  176. 

3  Ibid.,  1824,  ch.  199. 

4  Ibid.,  1824,  ch.  163.     Niles,  Aug.  26,  1820. 

s  Md.  Laws,  1825,  ch.  151.        '  Niles,  Nov.  15,  1823. 


60  History  of  State  Banking  in  Maryland. 

vided  for  its  closing  on  the  same  terms  as  the  other  banks, 
and  allowed  it  ten  years  to  effect  this.1 

The  Planters'  Bank  of  Prince  George's  County  after  a  time 
resumed  business.  In  August,  1829,  it  again  failed.  The 
deficiency  in  assets  in  this  case  amounted  to  $16,000,  which 
was  charged  to  embezzlement  by  the  cashier.  Its  notes,  of 
which  there  were  then  $15,000  in  circulation,  were  at  30-4° 
per  cent,  discount.  Its  stock  was  quoted  at  20  per  cent. 
discount.2 

During  the  period  1814-20  the  Baltimore  banks  were  also 
undergoing  severe  losses.  The  traceable  causes  of  this  are 
found  to  be  maladministration,  bad  practice  and  poor  in- 
vestments, operating  singly  or  together.  The  Mechanics' 
and  City  Banks  lost  heavily  from  maladministration.  The 
effect  of  the  practice  of  granting  renewals  of  notes  from  time 
to  time  without  proper  consideration  of  the  changes  in  the 
financial  ability  of  the  endorsers  will  be  noticed  in  the  next 
section.3  The  banks  generally  were  considerably  affected 
by  losses  through  this  practice.  The  Union  Bank  perhaps 
lost  most  heavily  in  this  manner;  in  fact,  its  directors  de- 
cided to  alter  its  policy  and  reduce  its  personal  notes  and  in- 
crease those  granted  upon  real  security,  and  this  plan  was 
followed  from  1820  to  1830.* 

The  third  cause  was  general  in  its  effects,  and  it  inflicted 
loss  proportionately  on  all  who  were  compelled  by  the  law 
of  1813,  chapter  122,  and  subsequent  laws,  to  subscribe  to  the 
various  improvement  schemes.  As  far  as  we  have  been  able 
to  estimate  these  subscriptions,  they  amounted  to  over 
$1,500,000.  The  cost  of  building  the  roads  was  always  much 
greater  than  the  computation.  They  were  in  no  sense  a 
good  investment  for  the  banks.  The  best  of  these  stocks 
paid  no  dividends  at  all  for  a  number  of  years,  and  then  per- 
haps they  paid  2  or  3  per  cent,  per  annum,  seldom  more; 


1  Johnston,  Hist.  Cecil  County,  p.  405.     Md.  Laws,  1834,  ch.  288. 
a  Niles,  Aug.  29,  1829.     Ibid.,  Mar.  20,  1830.  *  See  p.  67. 

4  Report  of  Union  Bank  to  Stockholders,  1830. 


Banking  in  Maryland,  1810-1864.  61 

after  a  few  years  they  ceased  to  pay  at  all.  This  is  the  his- 
tory of  nearly  all  of  these  improvement  companies  in  Mary- 
land.* 

The  only  failure  which  occurred  in  Baltimore  at  this  time 
was  that  of  the  City  Bank,  which  failed  in  1819.  Some  ac- 
count of  its  affairs  will  illustrate  the  extreme  form  of  reck- 
less banking.2  The  cashier  had  entire  control  of  the  con- 
cern, and  ran  it  according  to  his  own  ideas.  The  causes  of 
loss  were  mainly  negligence  and  embezzlement.  Many  ac- 
counts, especially  the  largest  ones,  were  not  posted  up; 
nearly  every  one  was  incorrectly  kept;  in  some  cases  no  ac- 
count at  all  was  on  the  books.  Individual  accounts  amount- 
ing to  hundreds  of  thousands  of  dollars  were  not  settled  for 
three  or  more  years  in  some  cases.  Under  such  careless 
supervision  embezzlement  was  easy.  All  the  officers  and 
clerks  (except  one)  had  received  large  discounts;  the  direc- 
tors also  received  discounts  without  proper  security.3  The 
overdrafts  amounted  to  $426,000. 

The  immediate  occasion  of  the  failure  was  a  call  upon  it. 
by  the  branch  of  the  United  States  Bank  at  Baltimore, 

1  Let  us  examine  briefly  a  single  example.    The  Cumberland  turn- 
pike road  was  the  most  important  and  most  promising  of  these  un- 
dertakings.    Between  1816  and  1822  the  banks  were  required  to  pay 
their  subscriptions  to  it,  amounting  to  more  than  $1,000,000,  or  56,000 
shares  at  twenty  dollars  the  share.     After  several  years  without  a 
dividend,  in  1830  it  was  paying  three  per  cent. ;  that  is,  its  value  capi- 
talized at  six  per  cent.,  the  usual  rate  got  by  the  banks,  was  $500,000. 
In  1841  the  rate  of  dividend  had  declined  ;  the  capitalized  value  was 
$333.333-     The  market  price  of  shares  whose  par  was  twenty  dol- 
lars, was  two  and  one-quarter  dollars  ;  the  total  market  value  was 
$126,000.     (Report  of  Union  Bank  to  Stockholders,  1830.)     In  other 
words,  within  a  period  of  twenty  years  the  million  dollars  of  stock 
was  almost  an  entire  loss.     When  we  consider  that  the  actual  capital 
of  the  banks  which  subscribed  was  about  $8,000,000,  we  immediately 
see  what  an  enormous  part  of  their  capital  was  unproductive  and 
ultimately  a  loss.    Cf.  p.  90. 

2  Report  to  Stockholders  of  City  Bank  of  Baltimore,  Oct.  20,  1819. 
Niles,  Oct.  30,  1819. 

s  Niles,  June  5,  1819. 


62  History  of  State  Banking  in  Maryland. 

which  it  could  not  meet  A  run  upon  it  was  the  result.  It 
extended  to  other  banks,  but  all  resisted  it  ably  except  the 
City  Bank,  which  could  only  pay  its  notes  under  five  dollars 
in  denomination  in  specie. 

STATEMENT  OF  THE  CONDITION   OF  THE  CITY  BANK  OF 
BALTIMORE,  OCTOBER  18,  1819. 

ASSETS: 
Bills  discounted: — 

Well  secured $571,065.21 

Doubtful 28,180.89 

Insolvent 43,792.50 

$643,038.60 

Real  estate 37,000.00 

Cumberland  Road  stock  ....    £39,569.41 
Baltimore  Exchange  Building  .    .       10,000.00 

49,569.41 

Cash,  specie $3,061.62 

Notes  of  Baltimore  banks  .    .    .    .        4,475.00 
Notes  of  insolvent  banks  ....         1,915.87 

9,452-49 
Due  from  banks  (supposed)  .    .    .  4,079.84 

Overdrawings 426,083.78 

Fifty-nine   persons  in  the  list,  all 

but  eleven  for  less  than  $1000; 

most  of  them  for  less  than  $100. 

Cashier $166,548.85 

His  friend 185,382.00 

Clerk 30,000.00 

"       I5;o82.io 

"       6,324.99 


Total,  $1,181,324.12 


Banking  in  Maryland,  1810-1864.  63 

LIABILITIES. 

Capital $832,030.00 

Notes 70,020.00 

Certificates  for  notes  depos- 
ited      117,824.03 

Small  notes  in  circulation  .  $7,000  to        10,000.00 

Due  to  banks 119,429.67 

To  U.  S.  branch $87,634.00 

To  Baltimore  banks  .    .    .     24,000.00 


Unclaimed  dividends  .    .    .  5,276.80 

Deposits 17,409.53 

Sundry  small  accounts  .    .  350.00 


$1,172,340.03 

In  the  $571,065.21  of  discounts  considered  well  secured, 
$250,000  or  $300,000  is  included  which  at  the  time  of  failure 
was  overdrafts  of  directors  or  others.  One  account 
amounted  to  $97,000.  These  were  arranged  for  before  the 
statement  to  the  stockholders  was  made.  The  committee 
estimated  the  value  of  the  assets  at  $760,310.08,  and  the  debts 
due  by  the  bank  at  $340,310.08,  which  left  a  remainder  for 
capital  of  $420,000.  The  loss  of  $400,000  by  the  stock- 
holders was  the  greatest  one.  The  notes  were  ultimately  re- 
deemed, though  many  were  sacrificed  through  alarm  imme- 
diately after  the  failure  at  rates  ranging  from  10  to  20  per 
cent,  discount.1  The  bank  very  soon  after  the  failure  issued 
certificates  bearing  interest  at  6  per  cent,  per  annum  in  sat- 
isfaction of  its  notes  deposited.2  The  loss  of  interest  was 
of  considerable  amount;  over  fifteen  years  were  consumed  in 
the  settlement;  in  1834  it  was  continued  to  1840  to  wind  up.3 
A  part  of  the  stockholders  desired  to  continue  the  bank,  but 
it  was  finally  decided  to  close.  Effort  was  made  to  convict 


1  Niles,  July  17,  1819.  *  Ibid.,  June  26, 1819. 

*  Md.  Laws,  1834,  ch.  93. 


64  History  of  State  Banking  in  Maryland. 

and  punish  the  embezzling  officers,  but  after  a  protracted 
contest  it  was  decided  by  the  court  that  the  action  of  the  de- 
frauders  was  not  punishable.1 

None  of  the  other  banks  of  Baltimore  were  driven  by  their 
losses  to  suspension.  However,  very  considerable  reduc- 
tions of  capital  occurred.  The  Mechanics'  Bank  was  com- 
pelled to  reduce  its  capital  by  two-fifths,  from  $1,000,000  to 
$6oo,ooo.2  In  1827  it  was  again  almost  driven  to  the  verge 
of  insolvency  by  bad  management,  but  a  change  of  its  offi- 
cers brought  it  out  of  trouble.3  On  account  of  losses  the 
Commercial  and  Farmers'  Bank  reduced  its  stock  from 
$1,000,000  to  $666,666f,  or  one-third.  The  Union  Bank 
reduced  its  capital  one-fourth,  from  $3,000,000  to  $2,250,- 
ooo.5  These  losses  were  reported  to  the  Legislature  in  1819 
and  permission  was  asked  to  continue  the  payment  of  divi- 
dends without  it  being  regarded  as  an  infringement  on  the 
capital.6  This  was  granted,  and  provision  was  made  for  re- 
funding the  capital.  Money  already  earned  was  allowed  to 
be  divided,  one-half  to  the  stockholders  and  one-half  to  meet 
the  contemplated  loss.  Of  future  earnings  three-fourths 
might  be  paid  in  dividends  and  one-fourth  retained  to  meet 
the  loss  until  it  was  finally  made  up.7  The  tax  for  the  school 
fund  was  adjusted  to  the  reduced  capital.8 

The  total  loss  of  banking  capital  by  reduction  was  more 
than  one-seventh.  The  State  lost  as  stockholder  about 
$64,000,  and  besides  other  stock  became  unproductive.9  In 
addition  to  these  losses  there  were  doubtless  others  of  con- 
siderable extent  which  did  not  become  public,  and  which 
were  made  up  from  profits  instead  of  a  reduction  of  capital 
being  made.  Of  these  we  can  form  no  estimate. 

1  Niles,  Apr.  21  and  Dec.  29,  1821. 

*  Md.  Laws,  1821,  ch.  167.     Griffith's  Annals  of  Balto.,  p.  179. 

8  Scharf,  Chronicles  of  Baltimore,  p.  574.      *  Md.  Laws,  1823,  ch.  68. 
5  Ibid.,  1821,  ch.  166.      Griffith,  Annals  of  Balto.,  p.  179.      Report 

of  Union  Bank  to  Stockholders,  1830.  6  Md.  Laws,  1819,  ch.  121. 

7  Ibid.,  1819,  ch.  141.  8  Ibid.,  1826,  ch.  215. 

9  Griffith,  Annals  of  Balto.,  p.  251.    Journal  of  House  of  Delegates, 
1828  and  1829. 


Banking  in  Maryland,  1810-1864.  65 

Summarizing  the  results,  we  see  that  after  the  critical 
period  of  1814-20,  almost  one-half  (nine  out  of  twenty-one) 
of  the  Maryland  banks  failed,  representing  a  capital  of 
$1,821,162,  or  more  than  22  per  cent,  of  the  entire  active 
capital.  In  Maryland  and  Pennsylvania  alone  of  the  East- 
ern States  was  the  rate  so  high,  though  about  the  same  rate 
prevailed  for  the  country  as  a  whole.  For  the  United  States 
the  failures  of  State  banks  amounted  to  $30,000,000  out  of  a 
total  of  $140,000,000.  The  total  loss  of  capital  in  Maryland 
by  failures  and  reduction  was  about  $3,000,000,  or  one-third 
of  the  paid-up  banking  capital. 

This  period  of  trial  and  discipline  was  not  without  its  salu- 
tary effects.  It  removed  the  whole  mass  of  weakly  organ- 
ized country  banks  which  had  been  only  a  disturbing  ele- 
ment. The  agricultural  conditions  which  had  called  them 
into  existence  were  now  rapidly  changing.  Instead  of  the 
boom  of  the  early  years  of  the  century,  which  Maryland 
wheat  lands  experienced,  developed  by  Baltimore  commerce, 
this  commerce  was  stationary,  perhaps  declining  a  little,  and 
Baltimore  was  beginning  to  take  her  place  as  a  manufactur- 
ing city.  This  meant  a  slower  development  for  agriculture. 

The  ideas  of  banking,  too,  were  greatly  changed.  The 
period  of  excessive  profits  was  regarded  as  past,  and  the 
banks  endeavored  by  care  and  economy  to  make  up  what 
they  had  lost  by  laxness  and  speculation.  From  1823  to 
1830  may  be  regarded  as  a  period  of  recuperation,  during 
which  the  banks  were  endeavoring  to  recover  from  the 
effects  of  the  preceding  decade. 

6.  Practice  of  the  Banks. 

It  was  during  the  expansion  of  1810-17  that  the  practice 
first  became  prevalent  in  Maryland  of  paying  subscriptions 
to  the  stock  of  banks  with  stock  notes.  It  was  charged  that 
this  occurred  in  the  case  of  every  bank,  except  two,  which 
was  established  in  Maryland  between  1811  and  iSiS.1  These 
were  all  country  banks,  and  their  organization  was  looser 

1  Niles,  Feb.  28,  1818. 


66  History  of  State  Banking  in  Maryland. 

than  that  of  the  city  banks.  The  action  of  these  banks  in 
the  crises  of  1814  and  1818  indicates  their  weakness.  A 
part  of  the  capital,  usually  about  one-third,  was  required  by 
the  charters  of  these  banks  to  be  paid  in  gold  or  silver  or  the 
notes  of  specie-paying  banks,  before  they  could  begin  busi- 
ness. No  manner  of  State  inspection  was  provided  to  insure 
obedience  to  the  law.  The  payment  of  the  remainder  of  the 
stock  was  left  entirely  in  the  charge  of  the  directors.  The 
plan  followed  was  briefly  this:  Allowing  that  the  first  in- 
stalment of  the  capital  was,  as  required,  paid  in  specie  or  the 
notes  of  specie-paying  banks,  then  the  subscriber  could  ob- 
tain discounts  to  the  amount  of  his  paid-up  stock;  with  this 
he  could  pay  his  second  instalment,  and  thus  on  until  his  en- 
tire subscription  was  paid.  If  the  bank  fared  well,  he  en- 
joyed dividends  on  the  whole  amount  of  his  stock;  if  it 
failed,  he  could  absolve  his  indebtedness  to  it  by  paying  in 
his  certificates  of  stock.  Thus  he  had  all  to  gain,  and  was 
irresponsible  for  losses. 

The  bad  condition  of  the  country  banks  from  1816  to  1820 
may  be  ascribed  to  two  chief  causes  :  first,  their  weak  organ- 
ization; and  second,  their  loans  on  real  estate.  Loans  had 
been  secured  by  farmers  during  the  inflation  of  1816-17;  m 
1817  the  prices  of  agricultural  products  fell,  and  the  farmers 
were  unable  to  meet  their  obligations.  The  banks,  entering 
upon  a  restrictive  policy,  were  anxious  to  retire  as  much 
paper  as  possible;  renewal  of  loans  was  refused  and  in  many 
cases  the  borrower  became  bankrupt.  At  one  time  early  in 
1818,  the  Somerset  Bank  had  150  suits  at  law  against  indi- 
viduals for  debt.  In  this  way  much  real  estate  fell  into  their 
hands  for  which  at  that  time  the  price  was  low  and  ready  sale 
could  not  be  found.  With  their  resources  locked  up  in  real 
estate,  they  were  unable  to  meet  their  cash  liabilities,  and 
were  in  almost  continual  suspension  from  1817  to  1820. 
Their  paper  was  either  at  a  great  discount  or  ceased  to  circu- 
late altogether. 

In  all  the  banks  reforms  were  needed.     Directors  and 
officers  were  still  able  to  use  their  positions  to  secure  loans 


Banking  in  Maryland,  1810-1864.  67 

and  discounts  in  extraordinary  amounts.  The  administra- 
tion of  banks  at  this  time  was  practically  controlled  by  the 
cashier.  The  president  was  largely  a  nominal  officer,  and 
the  one  elected  to  it  was  supposed  to  devote  but  a  small  por- 
tion of  his  time  to  its  duties.  A  change  in  this  respect  be- 
gan in  1821,  when  the  Union  Bank  decided  that  it  would  be 
conducive  to  better  management  to  have  a  president  who 
would  devote  to  the  office  all  the  time  required,  and  who 
should  receive  for  his  services  proportionate  recompense.1 

Considerable  danger  and  loss  resulted  to  the  banks  from 
their  laxity  in  permitting  the  renewal  of  notes.  Some  of  the 
charters  limited  discounts  upon  real  security  to  a  certain  per- 
centage of  the  capital,  usually  one-eighth;  in  others  no  lim- 
itation is  mentioned.  Aside  from  this,  it  was  the  custom 
among  the  city  banks  to  discount  chiefly  on  personal  secur- 
ity. The  discounts  on  personal  security  were  to  those  on 
real  in  the  ratio  of  9-12  to  I.  Two  names  were  uniformly 
required  on  each  paper,  one  of  which  had  to  be  of  undoubted 
credit.  The  banks  were  too  accommodating  in  permitting 
renewals ;  it  was  common  for  paper  to  run  four  or  five  years 
without  change  in  the  endorsement.2  In  a  time  when  finan- 
cial matters  undergo  such  violent  convulsions  as  between 
1814  and  1820,  the  danger  of  such  a  practice  cannot  be  exag- 
gerated. Endorsers  who  were  sound  in  1814  were  very 
unsound  in  1818.  The  losses  of  Baltimore  banks  on  bad 
paper  between  1816  and  1821  were  enormous,  and  most  all 
of  the  banks  were  seriously  affected  in  this  way.3 

1  Report  to  Stockholders  of  Union  Bank,  1821. 
a  Report  to  Stockholders  of  Union  Bank,  1820.     Cf.,  p.  60. 
8  The  following  example  will  illustrate  this  point  as  well  as  others 
of  which  we  have  just  been  speaking,  the  power  of  the  cashier  at  this 
time  and  the  manner  in  which  favorites  were  accommodated.     In  a 
report  of  the  condition  of  the  Union  Bank  on  August  26,  1819,  among 
the  resources  was  listed  an  item  of  $719,238.59,  made  up  as  follows  : 
tf  advanced  by  the  Cashier  without  the 

f  100,000.00          knowledge  of  the  Directors. 
357,502.39  doubtful  paper. 
151,293.52  overdrafts  ascertained. 
110,442.68  deficiency  in  funds  unaccounted  for. 
$719,238.59 
Almost  the  entire  amount  proved  an  utter  loss.    The  bank  was 


68  Plistory  of  State  Banking  in  Maryland. 

The  varying  rates  of  depreciation  of  bank  notes  opened  up 
to  the  banks  the  opportunity  of  buying  up  their  notes  at  the 
lowest  possible  rates.  For  this  purpose  special  arrange- 
ments were  entered  into  with  the  note  brokers,  and  it  was 
not  unusual  for  a  bank  to  have  out  agents  for  this  purpose. 
After  1818  it  became  illegal  for  any  one  to  buy,  sell  or  ex- 
change any  Maryland  bank  notes  for  a  less  sum  than  their 
nominal  value,  or  to  employ  for  the  purpose  any  broker  or 
agent.  The  forfeit  was  in  each  case  double  the  amount  of 
gold,  silver  or  notes  so  exchanged.1  The  law  was  ineffective 
and  simply  added  a  risk  charge  to  the  price  asked  for  such 
notes.2  The  practice  was  common  down  to  the  passage  of 
the  National  Bank  Act. 

The  action  of  some  of  the  banks  with  reference  to  counter- 
feits upon  their  notes  was  also  extremely  reprehensible.  In- 
stead of  announcing  to  the  public  the  discovery  of  a  coun- 
terfeit upon  their  notes,  the  more  unprincipled  banks  en- 
deavored to  keep  the  knowledge  of  it  as  secret  as  possible, 
lest  their  notes  of  that  denomination  might  cease  to  circu- 
late and  return  to  them  for  redemption.  Counterfeiting  was 
rendered  easy  and  successful  by  the  great  number  of  banks, 
each  of  which  had  a  different  style  of  note,  so  that  unless  one 
were  familiar  with  the  particular  characteristics  of  the  notes 
of  each  bank  the  imposition  of  false  notes  was  easy.  The 
poor  quality  of  paper  used  and  the  simple  engraving  made 
them  easy  of  imitation  and  increased  the  temptation  to  coun- 
terfeit them  accordingly.  Each  newspaper  usually  con- 
tained a  list  of  the  counterfeits  for  the  warning  of  the  public. 
In  1827  the  penalty  for  knowingly  passing  forged  or  coun- 


saved  for  the  time  being  by  loans  from  its  friends,  amounting  to 
$560,000  and  by  passing  its  dividends.  It  finally  resulted  in  loss  to 
the  stockholders  by  a  reduction  of  the  capital,  amounting  to  $600,000, 
or  one-fourth  of  the  whole.  (Report  to  the  Stockholders  of  Union 
Bank  for  1820  and  1830.  Md.  Laws,  1821,  ch.  166.) 
1  Md.  Laws,  1818,  ch.  191.  *  Niles,  July  24,  1819. 


Banking  in  Maryland,  1810-1864.  69 

terfeit  notes  was  fixed  at  five  to  ten  years  in  the  penitentiary 
for  the  first  offence,  and  ten  to  twenty  years  for  the  second.1 

The  Baltimore  banks  were  driven  to  stop  receiving  on  de- 
posit depreciated  bank  notes.  They  were  not  allowed  by 
law  to  receive  them  at  less  than  their  nominal  value,  while 
the  risk  of  the  solvency  of  the  issuers  and  the  trouble  and 
expense  of  collecting  and  sending  them  home  for  redemp- 
tion fell  upon  the  banks.  Demand  for  specie,  too,  was  in 
many  cases  the  cause  of  unpleasant  relations.  The  notes, 
not  only  of  Virginia,  Pennsylvania,  District  of  Columbia  and 
other  distant  points,  but  also  of  some  Maryland  country 
banks  and  those  of  the  United  States  Bank,  if  payable  at  dis- 
tant points,  were  refused.  This  action  tended  naturally  to 
increase  the  discount  upon  such  notes,  and  to  retard  their 
circulation;  the  only  recourse  was  to  place  them  in  brokers' 
hands.  The  banks  suffered  materially  by  refusing  them. 

To  secure  a  freer  circulation  of  their  notes,  the  country 
banks  of  Maryland  contemplated  the  establishment  of  a  joint 
bank  just  outside  of  Baltimore.  On  January  27,  1816,  they 
were  successful  in  procuring  a  charter  under  the  title  of  the 
Consolidated  Bank.2  The  capital,  $500,000,  in  shares  of 
$100  each,  payable  in  Baltimore  bank  notes,  was  to  be  ap- 
portioned to  the  banks  of  Maryland  located  outside  of  Balti- 
more; the  directors  were  to  be  appointed  by  the  banks.  The 
capitals  of  the  banks  subscribing  were  to  be  reduced  in  pro- 
portion as  they  subscribed  for  stock  in  the  new  bank.  The 
charter  was  to  be  made  null  if  the  Baltimore  banks  agreed  to 
receive  the  notes  of  outside  banks  on  deposit  and  to  reissue 
them.  The  project  never  materialized.  Not  until  June, 
1823,  did  the  banks  of  Baltimore  begin  again  the  receipt  of 
all  Maryland  bank  notes  on  the  same  terms  as  their  own,  arid 
at  the  same  time  Pennsylvania  and  Virginia  notes  were  re- 
ceived on  deposit.3  While  the  organization  is  different,  this 
is  in  principle  an  anticipation  of  the  Suffolk  bank  system. 

1  Md.  Laws,  1827,  ch.  62.  *  Ibid.,  1815,  ch.  169. 

3  Niles,  June  28,  1823.     Ibid.,  Aug.  23,  1823. 


70  History  of  State  Banking  in  Maryland. 

The  wider  credit  of  all  would  have  been  substituted  for  the 
individual  credit  by  the  central  redemption. 

7.  Miscellaneous  Legislation. 

It  has  been  said  that  the  charters  of  the  country  banks 
established  between  1810  and  1818  were  of  less  strict  nature 
than  the  earlier  ones.  Some  of  these  points  of  difference  will 
now  be  mentioned.  Usually  one-third  to  one-fourth  of  the 
first  instalment  only  of  the  capital  was  required  to  be  paid  in 
specie;  the  amount  of  the  first  instalment  varied  from  one- 
third  to  one-half  of  the  capital.  The  payment  of  subsequent 
instalments  was  left  entirely  with  the  directors,  and  thus  an 
opportunity  was  offered  for  the  use  of  stock  notes.1  In  one 
case,  that  of  the  Centreville  Bank,  to  avoid  this  the  charter 
required  the  whole  capital  to  be  paid  in  specie. 

The  State  became  a  subscriber  to  the  stock  of  two  of  these 
country  banks,  viz.,  the  Elkton  and  Hagerstown  Banks, 
but  usually  the  provision  was  made  that  whenever  the  State 
desired  to  take  stock  it  might  increase  the  capital  of  the 
banks  and  subscribe.  Until  subscription  was  made  the 
State  appointed  no  directors,  and  usually  required  no  annual 
reports,  since  it  was  only  as  stockholder  that  it  exercised 
this  supervision.  Only  five  of  these  country  banks  were  re- 
quired to  send  reports  of  their  condition  to  a  State  officer. 
However,  by  a  resolution  of  the  General  Assembly,  passed  in 
i8i8,2  all  the  banks  within  the  State  were  required  to  trans- 
mit an  annual  report  in  December  to  the  Assembly.3  The 
points  to  be  specified  in  the  report  were  the  same  as  those 
described  heretofore  in  the  charter  of  the  Bank  of  Balti- 
more.4 

In  some  cases  even  the  nominal  limit  of  debts  to  twice  the 
amount  of  capital  paid  in  was  omitted,  and  no  limit  at  all  was 
imposed.6  These  were  allowed  to  discount  on  property  se- 
curity up  to  one-fifth  to  one-eighth  of  their  actual  capital. 
The  Mechanics'  Bank  of  Baltimore  allowed  discounts  on  the 

1  Cf.,  p.  27.  *  Resolution  18. 

*  Cf.  ibid.,  A-J,  1819.  *  See  p.  28. 

5  Cf.  Md.  Laws,  1813,  ch.  33. 


Banking  in  Maryland,  1810-1864.  71 

security  of  stock  up  to  three-fourths  of  the  stock  paid  in.  As 
a  consequence  of  their  discounting  largely  to  farmers  upon 
real  security,  the  discount  term  was  increased.  Only  two 
were  limited  to  sixty-day  discounts;  for  one  the  limit  was 
four  months,  for  nine  it  was  six  months,  for  two  there  was 
no  limit. 

Directors  were  forbidden  by  most  all  of  the  charters  to  re- 
ceive discounts  on  different  terms  from  others.  The  usual 
limit  of  discounts  to  directors  was  $1000  in  one  week,  or  a 
total  of  $5000  in  all.  The  president  and  directors  were  eligi- 
ble for  reelection  without  limit  in  the  bank  of  Somerset  and 
Worcester.  In  the  five  charters  which  were  granted  in  1817 
and  1818  suspension  of  specie  payments  rendered  the  charter 
void.  The  insertion  of  this  provision  was  a  result  of  the 
continued  suspension  of  Maryland  country  banks  after  the 
general  resumption  of  February,  1816.  Six  per  cent,  was 
fixed  as' the  legal  rate  of  interest  and  discount,  and  usury  was 
forbidden;  however,  interest  calculated  according  to  Row- 
lett's  Tables  was  made  valid.1 

The  issue  of  small  notes  was  uniformly  prohibited  by  the 
charters,  but  this  became  a  matter  of  special  legislation.  In 
1821  a  general  law2  was  passed  on  this  subject,  called  forth 
by  the  violations  of  charter  provisions  and  previous  legisla- 
tion, which  made  it  unlawful,  under  penalty  of  $20  fine,  for 
any  bank  to  issue  or  pay  out  notes  or  bills  of  a  less  denomina- 
tion than  $5,  or  of  a  denomination  intermediate  between  $5 
and  $10.  Persons  passing  such  notes  of  any  incorporated 
or  unincorporated  company  were  liable  to  a  fine  of  $5  for 
each  offence.  This  law  was  the  result  of  a  genuine  effort  on 
the  part  of  the  banks  and  people  to  regenerate  the  currency 
and  get  rid  of  the  small  "rags."  Early  in  1820  the  banks 
were  freely  supplying  specie  dollars  in  place  of  the  small 
notes,  but  the  silver  was  immediately  displaced  by  notes  from 
the  District  of  Columbia.8  Finally  in  September,  1820,  the 

1  Md.  Laws,  1826,  ch.  99.     Ibid.,  1832,  ch.  152. 
*  Ibid.,  1820,  ch.  150.  *  Niles,  Jan.  6,  1820. 


72  History  of  State  Banking  in  Maryland. 

banks  decided  to  receive  for  five  days  all  notes  under  $5,  and 
thereafter  neither  to  reissue  them  nor  issue  new  ones,1  and 
the  townspeople  in  a  general  meeting  agreed  to  assist  in  im- 
proving the  currency  by  not  circulating  such  notes.2 

"An  act  to  impose  a  tax  on  all  banks  or  branches  thereof 
in  the  State  of  Maryland  not  chartered  by  the  Legislature" 
was  passed  in  i8i8.3  It  enacted  that  any  bank  establishing 
an  office  or  branch  in  the  State  without  first  obtaining  the 
State's  authority,  should  not  issue  notes  except  upon 
stamped  paper  procured  from  a  State  officer  and  of  the  de- 
nominations $5,  $10,  $20,  $50,  $100,  $500  and  $1000,  on 
which  a  tax  of  10,  20,  30  and  50  cents,  $i,  $10  and  $20,  re- 
spectively, was  imposed.  $15,000  annually  might  be  paid  in 
lieu  of  the  above  tax.  $500  was  the  penalty  for  establishing 
such  an  office,  and  $100  was  the  penalty  for  circulating  notes 
of  such  banks  unstamped.  The  direct  object  of  this  law  was 
the  taxation  of  the  branch  of  the  Bank  of  the  United  States 
located  at  Baltimore.  The  law  was  urged  both  on  general 
grounds  of  hostility  to  the  bank  and  on  account  of  opposi- 
tion to  it  by  the  State  banks,  who  feared  its  competition  and 
restraining  influence;  besides,  the  opinion  was  general  that 
an  outside  bank  should  not  be  permitted  to  enter  the  State 
on  more  favorable  terms  than  the  State  banks.  The  law  was 
declared  unconstitutional  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States  in  1819  in  the  familiar  case  of  McCulloch  vs. 
Maryland,  on  the  ground  that  it  interfered  with  the  execu- 
tion of  one  of  the  implied  powers  of  the  government. 

Several  restrictive  measures  were  the  outcome  of  the 
speculative  character  of  banking  from  1814  to  1820.  The 
use  of  proxies  in  voting  was  manipulated  to  the  advantage 
of  ring  or  machine  management,  and  fraudulent  proxies 
were  used.  The  correction  of  this  abuse  was  aimed  at  in  the 
law  of  1819,  chapter  134,  which  forbade  the  use  of  proxies  to 
all  except  the  infirm  and  those  living  more  than  ten  miles 


1  Niles,  Sept.  9,  1820.  *  Ibid.,  Sept.  30,  1820. 

s  Md.  Laws,  1817,  ch.  156. 


Banking  in  Maryland,  1810-1864.  73 

away.  No  officer,  clerk  or  director  could  act  as  proxy,  and 
in  any  case  power  of  attorney  was  necessary.  Judges  of 
election  permitting  violation  of  these  provisions  were  liable 
to  $2000  fine  and  imprisonment  for  a  year. 

Directors  were  not  entitled  to  receive  any  accommoda- 
tions on  special  terms,  and  no  one  could  be  elected  director 
of  a  bank  whose  partner  was  a  director  of  the  same  bank.1 
This  law  was  restricted  to  Baltimore  banks,  and  the  assent 
of  the  stockholders  was  necessary  to  give  it  force.  This  it 
received. 

The  frauds  which  were  exposed  in  the  management  of  the 
City,  Union  and  Mechanics'  Banks  and  the  escape  of  the 
parties  from  punishment,  led  to  severe  laws  on  this  subject. 
The  law  of  1819,  chapter  145,  fixed  the  penalty  for  embez- 
zlement by  a  bank  officer  at  one  to  seven  years  in  the  peni- 
tentiary; for  fraudulent  abuse  of  trust  the  punishment  was 
one  to  ten  years  in  the  penitentiary.  In  1821  the  penalty  in 
each  of  these  cases  was  made  five  to  fifteen  years  in  the  peni- 
tentiary. 

8.    Crises  0/1825  an^  1828. 

After  1820  there  came  a  reaction  from  the  period  of  spec- 
ulation which  had  preceded.  The  weak  banks  passed  out  of 
existence;  the  survivors  enjoyed  a  long  period  of  prosperity 
without  violent  disturbance.  By  1830  they  had  recovered 
from  the  losses  of  1816-21.  The  United  States  Bank  exer- 
cised a  controlling  influence  over  them  and  rendered  their 
operations  more  guarded  and  regular.  The  State  banks 
followed  more  slowly  the  restrictions  and  expansions  of  the 
national  bank.  In  Maryland  there  was  not  a  time  in  the 
decade  1820-30  at  which  the  banks  had  dangerously  ex- 
panded. (See  Appendix,  page  137,  for  the  circulation  and 
deposits  of  Baltimore  banks  for  this  period.)  It  is  impos- 
sible at  present  to  obtain  the  figures  for  the  country  banks; 
however,  they  represent  but  a  small  part  of  the  banking  cap- 
ital at  this  time,  since  all  had  gone  out  of  existence  except 
four. 

1  Cf.  Md.  Laws,  1819,  ch.  156. 


74  History  of  State  Banking  in  Maryland. 

The  panic  of  1825  was  the  result  of  a  general  spirit  of  spec- 
ulation, which  reached  its  greatest  magnitude  in  Europe;  in 
America  its  special  feature  was  speculation  in  cotton.  An 
increased  tariff  also  heightened  the  expectation  of  prosper- 
ity. Demand  for  credit  stimulated  the  creation  of  banks 
again,  especially  in  New  England,  New  York,  Pennsylvania 
and  the  West.  The  currency  became  considerably  inflated. 
Maryland  was .  comparatively  affected  but  little,  since  the 
speculation  in  cotton  in  this  district  was  not  great.  Her 
banking  institutions  did  not  receive  a  single  addition.  The 
circulation  of  the  Baltimore  banks  was  increased  but  $240,- 
ooo  during  1824,  the  year  of  inflation.  Within  the  next  six 
months  there  was  added  about  $150,000,  but  nothing  ex- 
treme occurred. 

When  the  reaction  began,  about  September,  1825,  by  the 
fall  in  the  price  of  cotton  and  other  products,  general  distress 
prevailed.  Many  failures  occurred  all  over  the  Union,  but 
Maryland  suffered  proportionally  less  than  any  other  State. 
The  circulation  was  uniform  and  adequate  to  its  work.1  The 
contraction  by  the  State  banks  was  not  sufficiently  rapid  to 
produce  disaster;  in  fact,  the  discounts  of  Baltimore  banks 
was  greater  in  January,  1826,  than  for  a  number  of  years  pre- 
ceding, reaching  $3,047,410.  By  January,  1827,  the  amount 
had  been  diminished  by  $70,000  by  curtailing  issues.  The 
entire  circulation  of  Maryland  banks  was  in  good  credit; 
none  of  it  was  at  a  discount.  This  was  largely  the  effect  of 
the  frequent  settlements  required  by  the  United  States 
Bank.  A  considerable  part  of  the  circulation  was  coin ;  very 
few  notes  under  $5  in  denomination  were  current,  and  these 
were  chiefly  Virginia  bank  notes.2 

The  disturbance  of  1828  was  largely  resultant  from  an  ex- 
tension of  circulation  by  the  Bank  of  the  United  States.  By 
April,  1828,  the  money  market  had  become  very  close,  and 
much  specie  was  being  exported.  The  banks  of  Maryland 
had  already  been  compelled  to  begin  a  reduction  of  dis- 

1Niles,  Dec.  3,  1825.  *Niles,  Nov.  19,  1825. 


Banking  in  Maryland,  1810-1864.  75 

counts.  At  the  same  time  they  ceased  to  receive  on  deposit 
or  for  the  payment  of  notes,  the  bills  of  all  banks  which  were 
not  received  in  Philadelphia  and  New  York.  The  quantity 
of  specie  at  the  command  of  the  country  banks  was  so  lim- 
ited that  already  the  redemption  of  their  notes  was  in  many 
cases  a  task.  The  Baltimore  banks  relieved  the  stringency 
as  far  as  lay  in  their  power.  In  January,  1828,  the  circu- 
lation and  deposits  amounted  to  $2,996,350;  by  January, 
1829,  they  had  increased  to  $3,055,980.  The  periods  of 
greatest  depression  were  May,  1828,  and  September,  1828, 
to  July,  1829.  By  the  end  of  1829  business  had  revived  and 
money  seemed  plentiful ;  a  large  part  of  it  was  silver.1 

9.  Expansion  of  1829-36. 

Several  causes  were  operative  in  producing  the  expansion 
of  banking  in  Maryland  which  occurred  from  1829  to  1836. 
In  the  first  place,  the  counties  which  had  been  gradually  pro- 
gressing during  the  decade  1820-30  had  been  practically 
without  banking  facilities  since  the  wholesale  fall  of  the 
country  banks  in  1819-21.  This  field  was  now  a  ripe  one  for 
entrance.  Secondly,  no  new  banks  had  been  established  in 
Baltimore  since  1812;  the  monopoly  of  banking  in  that  city 
had  been  conferred  on  the  banks  then  existing  in  return  for 
their  agreement  to  build  a  road  from  Baltimore  to  Cumber- 
land.2 This  monopoly  expired  in  1835.  During  this  period 
of  twenty-three  years  Baltimore  manufactures  had  devel- 
oped steadily,  and  in  1835  works  were  in  construction  or 
contemplation  destined  to  make  Baltimore  the  mart  for  a 
wide  extent  of  territory.  In  1825  the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio 
Canal  was  chartered;  the  Chesapeake  and  Delaware  Canal 
was  entered  upon  in  1829.  A  charter  was  given  to  the  Bal- 
timore and  Ohio  Railroad  in  1826,  and  to  the  Susquehanna 
in  1829;  the  Philadelphia,  Wilmington  and  Baltimore  line 
was  opened  for  travel  in  1837.  Other  lines  were  being  dis- 
cussed. The  improvement  in  transportation  was  opening 
up  new  industrial  possibilities,  and  Baltimore  was  zealous  to 

1  Niles,  1828  and  1829.     See  table  next  page. 
7  See  p.  46. 


76 


History  of  State  Banking  in  Maryland. 


o 
to 

00 


rt 

PQ 


rt 

s 

"o 

O 


c 
o 
U 


i 

p>gf$g  • 

§IO  »H    ON  M 
t^  I^OO    T}* 
CS   CN1   OsCO      . 

•NAVO1SH,OVH 

J*SS?8  • 

o  so  r^  »o  CNI 

M           * 

§(•»  IO    '     '  ON 
CO  Ci      .     .CO 

*% 

|gf  ;  ;" 

I)!*!;  i^S 

\D    t^  M     CO  HI     O 

vo  rO  H<  f>.  O  lO 

'JMtfVH  5  "WOO 

OO   u">  HI        00  00 

Tj-  (S     M 

N  vQ  ^O   ON  rf     ' 
OO   O   M  CO  CO 

O  HI  rO  r^  O  IO 

£    M 

HI  »-.  ro  CT>  M  HI 

85>^§5  • 

§#fS8  -| 

•HNiavw 

OMO  c»  cs  w    • 

rO\O  OO   CS 
***•                       • 

^o^og  ; 

o  co  co  r^.      ^- 

•SOINVHD3W 

r**  cs  10  o  M 

Sst^;* 

•NOINfl 

CO  vO      '   10  »O     " 

00   SN       <§\Td"    " 

CTNHt        -    C?^ff      • 
HI                «                         . 

VO   W   uS  nT    •   O\ 
rO  0)   iO  H»          M 

ft 

KUts^  ; 

lO  M   t^  O  *-O  OO 
rO  rO  iO  fOCO  iO 

•HHOKLTIYH 

^ll3-*  ; 

ON  M   (S   Tj-QO   W 
M^M  VM 
M 

J2 

*  '    <j 

W 

en 

RESOURCE 

Discounts..  .  . 
Specie  
Due  from  banks 
Real  estate 
Road  and  other 
Suspense  accoui 

UABILITII 

Capital  
Circulation  .  . 
Denosits  .... 
Due  to  banks  . 
Surplus  .... 
Other  liabilities 

Banking  in  Maryland,  1810-1864.  77 

render  effective  her  strong  natural  position.  In  1830  the 
cry  for  more  banking  capital  had  already  become  a  strong 
one.1  The  whole  State  was  dependent  for  bank  accommo- 
dations upon  twelve  banks,  of  which  eight  were  in  Baltimore. 
The  total  capital  for  the  State  was  $5,455,000,  exclusive  of 
$1,500,000  to  $2,000,000  employed  by  the  branch  of  the 
United  States  Bank.  The  counties  needed  the  introduction 
of  facilities  at  the  more  advanced  points,  and  the  city  needed 
an  increased  banking  capital. 

A  third  cause  which  was  influential  in  the  increase  of 
banks  at  this  time  was  the  termination  of  the  Second  Bank 
of  the  United  States.  The  end  of  this  institution  at  the  ex- 
piring of  its  charter  in  1836  was  anticipated  as  early  as  1830. 
In  1832  President  Jackson,  by  his  veto,  put  at  rest  all  hopes 
of  recharter.  As  in  1810,  so  again  in  1832,  this  was  the  sig- 
nal for  hosts  of  applications  for  new  banking  charters. 

In  Maryland  the  expansion  took  the  forms  both  of  an  in- 
crease in  the  number  of  institutions  and  also  of  an  augmenta- 
tion of  the  capital  of  several  of  the  old  banks.  The  former 
movement  was  much  the  greater.  No  banks  were  chartered 
in  Maryland  from  1818  to  1829.  Between  1829  and  1836 
seventeen  new  ones  were  granted  charters  and  two  old  ones 
which  had  failed  in  1821  were  revived.  Five  of  the  seven- 
teen, however,  did  not  organize  and  open  for  business.  Nine 
of  the  new  banks  were  chartered  for  Baltimore  in  1835;  ten 
were  distributed  over  seven  counties.  None  were  created  in 
Baltimore  after  1835  for  more  than  a  decade,  owing  to  the 
renewal  of  the  monopoly  to  the  banks  then  existing  until 
1845  upon  their  agreement  to  make  the  Boonsboro  road.2 

The  total  authorized  capital  of  the  new  banks  was  $17,- 
900,000,  though  the  banks  which  did  not  enter  upon  opera- 
tions reduced  this  by  $10,750,000.  The  actual  increase  of 
capital  was  $4,878,900,  or  half  as  much  as  the  preexisting 


1  Report  of  Select  Committee  on  a  Bank  of  the  State  of  Maryland, 
1830.  Report  of  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means  on  a  Bank  of  the 
State  of  Maryland,  1833.  *  See  p.  47. 


78 


History  of  State  Banking  in  Maryland. 


capital;  $3,788,730  of  this  new  capital  belonged  to  the  five 
new  Baltimore  banks. 

A  list  of  these  banks,  with  their  nominal  capital,  follows: 


CAPITAL. 

$  50,000 
250,000 
IOO,OOO 

2OOJOOO 

200,000 

3OO-I5O,OOO 

2,OOO,OOO 

500,000 

3,000,000 

5OO-25O,OOO 

1,000-500,000 

250,OOO 

5OO,OOO 

2,OOO,OOO 

5,OOO,OOO 

30O,OOO 

150,000 

2,OOO,OOO 

5OO,OOO 


NAME. 

LOCATION. 

KSTAB'D. 

Salisbury, 

Salisbury, 

1829 

Washington  Co., 

Williamsport, 

1831 

Commercial, 

Millington, 

1831 

Cumberland,* 

Cumberland, 

1832 

Planters'  Bank  of 

Prince  Geo.  's  Co.  ,  * 

St.  Mary's, 

1832 

Patapsco, 

Ellicott's  Mills, 

1833 

Merchants', 

Baltimore, 

1835 

Western, 

Baltimore, 

1835 

Commercial,! 

Baltimore, 

1835 

Eastern,  f 

Baltimore, 

1835 

Chesapeake, 

Baltimore, 

1835 

Mineral, 

Cumberland, 

1835 

Citizens', 

Baltimore, 

1835 

Farmers'  and  Plan- 

ters', 

Baltimore, 

1835 

Real  Estate,  f 

Baltimore, 

1835 

Farmers'  and  Millers'  , 

Hagerstown, 

1835 

Hamilton, 

Anne  Arundel, 

1835 

Real  Estate,  f 

Frederick, 

1835 

Union,f 

Cumberland, 

I836 

*  Revived. 


Total,  $17,900,000 
f  Did  not  open  for  business. 


The  strict  conditions  imposed  upon  some  of  the  new  banks 
prevented  their  organization.  The  capital  of  the  Commer- 
cial Bank  was  fixed  at  $3,000,000,  to  which  the  State  might 
add  $100,000  whenever  it  wished  to  subscribe  to  its  stock. 
The  bank  was  allowed  to  invest  $300,000  in  ocean  steam- 
ships trading  with  Baltimore.  Baltimore  was  to  be  the  loca- 
tion of  the  main  bank,  and  two  offices  of  discount  and  de- 


Banking  in  Maryland,  1810-1864.  79 

posit  were  to  be  opened  on  the  Eastern  Shore  and  three  on 
the  Western.  $600,000  in  specie  was  required  to  be  on  hand 
at  the  beginning  of  business,  and  besides  the  regular  school 
tax,  a  bonus  of  $112,500  was  required.1 

The  Eastern  Bank  of  Baltimore  had  already  been  in  ope- 
ration as  the  Fell's  Point  Savings  Institution.  It  was  given 
full  banking  privileges  on  condition  that  when  the  change 
was  effected  it  should  have  on  hand  in  specie  $125,000,  half 
its  nominal  capital,  and  should  become  subject  to  the  school 
tax,  besides  paying  the  State  a  bonus  of  $9/75  and  an  addi- 
tional bonus  of  $3.75  per  $100  of  capital  over  $250,000. 
Likewise  for  the  Union  Bank  of  Allegany  the  specie  require- 
ment was  large,  and  besides  the  regular  school  tax,  a  bonus 
of  $3.75  per  $100  of  nominal  capital  was  required. 

The  two  real  estate  banks,  located  in  Baltimore  and  Fred- 
erick, respectively,  were  a  manifestation  in  Maryland  of  the 
same  movement  which  was  gaining  ground  rapidly  at  this 
time  in  the  West.  The  plans  of  the  two  banks  were  similar. 
The  capital  of  the  Real  Estate  Bank  of  Baltimore  was 
$5,000,000,  consisting  of  real  estate  in  Baltimore,  conveyed 
to  the  bank,  to  the  amount  of  $4,000,000,  and  $1,000,000  in 
money.  Only  fee  simple  and  unencumbered  estates  of  les- 
sees for  ninety-nine  years,  renewable  forever,  were  received. 
The  bank  was  to  borrow  $4,000,000  by  a  sale  of  bonds  bear- 
ing interest  at  6  per  cent,  or  less.  Each  one  conveying  land 
to  the  corporation  held  stock  to  the  amount  of  its  value,  but 
was  responsible  for  depreciation  of  the  land.  The  Governor 
of  the  State  had  power  to  appoint  five  persons  to  inspect  it 
after  the  lapse  of  three  years.  A  bonus  of  $3.75  on  each  $100 
of  its  capital  up  to  $4,000,000  was  required  by  the  State. 
$400,000  in  specie  had  to  be  in  its  possession  before  it  could 
begin  business.  The  charter  of  the  Real  Estate  Bank  of 
Frederick  County  was  similar  to  the  one  just  described. 
Its  capital  was  $2,000,000,  of  which  $1,800,000  was  to  be  in 
Frederick  County  real  estate  and  $200,000  in  money.  Bonds 

1  Md.  Laws,  1835,  ch.  289. 


80  History  of  State  Banking  in  Maryland. 

for  $1,500,000  were  to  be  issued.  The  strict  requirements, 
together  with  their  experimental  character,  prevented  their 
organization.1 

The  restraint  exercised  by  the  Legislature  was  sufficient 
to  allow  banks  to  be  organized  only  where  there  was  an 
economic  demand  for  them.  A  number  of  applications  for 
charters  was  refused,  and  the  strictness  of  those  granted  pre- 
vented their  acceptance  by  speculators.  Several  of  the 
companies  granted  charters  were  compelled  to  ask  for  an 
extension  of  the  time  allowed  them  for  organization,  which 
indicated  the  difficulty  of  complying  with  the  conditions. 

The  new  charters  were  more  rigorous  in  the  following  re- 
spects: The  quantity  of  specie  required  to  be  on  hand  on 
opening  for  business  varied  in  different  cases  from  the  entire 
authorized  capital  to  one-fourth  of  it,  and  before  the  bank 
could  open  for  operations  the  Treasurer  of  the  Western 
Shore  must  have  made  examination  and  seen  that  this 
amount  of  specie  was  in  the  hands  of  the  bank.  It  was  pro- 
hibited, too,  to  pay  instalments  of  stock  with  discounts  ob- 
tained by  pledge  of  such  stock.  Forfeiture  of  charter  on 
failure  to  pay  their  liabilities  in  specie  on  demand  was  a  pro- 
vision of  these  charters,  and  interest  at  12  per  cent,  per  an- 
num was  demandable  from  the  time  when  payment  was  de- 
manded and  refused.  In  the  report  of  the  Select  Committee 
on  the  Currency  to  the  Legislature  in  1837,  greater  respon- 
sibility on  the  part  of  the  directors  was  urged.  It  was  sug- 
gested that  this  be  fixed  at  an  amount  equal  to  one-half  their 
stock.  This,  however,  failed  to  receive  sufficient  support  to 
make  it  a  law. 

The  expansion  of  the  capital  of  banks  already  in  opera- 
tion amounted  to  $2,500,000.  The  Franklin  Bank  added 
$1,200,000  ;2  the  Salisbury,  $100,000  ;3  the  Hagerstown 
$400,000;*  and  the  Hamilton,  upon  its  removal  to  Baltimore, 
in  1837,  added  to  its  capital  $8oo,ooo.5  The  State,  too,  by 

1  Md.  Laws,  1835,  ch.  378.         *  Ibid.,  1835,  ch.  277. 
8  Ibid.,  1836,  ch.  159.  *  Ibid.,  1836,  ch.  295. 

5  Ibid.,  1836,  ch.  198. 


Banking  in  Maryland,  1810-1864.  81 

selling  its  right  to  subscribe  in  several  of  the  banks  effected 
really  an  increase  of  active  capital.  The  right  to  subscribe 
to  the  capital  had  been  reserved  by  the  State  in  every  case 
in  granting  the  charter,  and  inasmuch  as  but  a  small  portion 
of  this  amount  had  ever  been  subscribed  and  paid  for,  it  really 
operated  as  a  limitation  of  capital.  Between  1833  and  1836 
the  State  sold  the  right  to  subscribe  some  or  all  of  her  re- 
served shares  in  three  banks  at  rates  varying  from  $2  to  $10 
per  share.  Stock  to  the  amount  of  $625,000  was  thus  freed 
for  subscription,  $75,000  in  the  Union  Bank,  $500,000  in  the 
Merchants'  and  $50,000  in  the  Hamilton. 

Some  mention  of  the  great  extension  of  private  banks 
should  be  made  here.  It  is  impossible  to  obtain  definite  in- 
formation concerning  them.  The  chief  function  performed 
by  these  private  banks  was  that  of  issue,  and  after  about 
1825  this  function  was  exercised  by  companies  of  all  sorts 
which  could  find  a  market  for  such  wares.  With  a  view  to 
restraining  them  they  were  made  subject  to  the  same  pro- 
visions as  banks  as  regards  the  denominations  of  their 
notes.1  A  more  effective  check  was  administered  in  1842, 
when  they  were  prohibited  altogether  from  issuing.2 

Reviewing,  then,  the  increase  of  banking  capital  from 
1829  to  1836,  we  find  that  at  its  beginning  there  were  thir- 
teen banks,  with  an  active  capital  of  $7,461,372.  These 
were  increased  by  fourteen  banks,  whose  paid-up  stock  was 
$4,878,000.  The  total  increase  of  active  capital  from  the 
three  sources  mentioned  above  was  over  $8,000,000,  i.  e., 
the  capital  was  doubled.  The  Bank  of  Maryland  by  its  fail- 
ure in  1834  detracted  $300,000.'  In  1836  there  were,  then, 
twenty-six  banks,  whose  nominal  capital  was  $19,176,000,  of 
which  $15,465,000  was  paid  in. 

10.  An  Attempt  to  Establish  a  Bank  of  the  State  of  Maryland. 

Throughout  the  years  1830-33  there  was  an  active  discus- 
sion of  a  plan  to  establish  a  bank  under  the  direct  control  of 

1  Md.  Laws,  1831,  ch.  317.  *  See  p.  100. 

8  See  p.  89,  et  seq. 


82  History  of  State  Banking  in  Maryland. 

the  State  government.  The  need  of  a  decided  increase  of 
banking  capital  and  of  the  location  of  banks  in  the  country 
sections  were  facts  admitted  by  all.  Those  engaged  in  man- 
ufacturing and  commercial  operations  especially  complained 
of  the  inadequacy  of  the  banking  capital  and  the  limited 
amount  of  the  currency.1  The  cause  of  the  small  amount  of 
circulation  was  considered  to  be  the  influence  of  the  United 
States  Bank  in  restraining  the  State  banks.2  The  espousers 
of  the  new  State  bank  were  bitterly  opposed  to  the  United 
States  Bank. 

The  objects  of  the  new  institution  were  to  be  an  increase 
of  the  circulating  medium,  the  convenience  and  benefit  of  the 
people  at  large,  the  repletion  of  the  treasury  of  the  State,  the 
keeping  of  the  public  deposits,  the  making  of  improvements, 
the  support  of  public  education  and  the  avoidance  of  taxa- 
tion. The  bank  was  to  belong  to  the  State  exclusively,  and 
the  contemplated  organization  of  it  would  have  made  it  a  de- 
partment of  the  State  government.  The  president  and 
board  of  five  directors  were  to  be  appointed  by  the  General 
Assembly,  on  the  recommendation  of  the  Governor,  with  the 
consent  of  the  Council.  The  president  and  directors  had 
power  to  appoint  the  officers  and  other  agents.  Office  was 
to  be  tenable  during  good  behavior,  subject  to  removal  by 
the  Governor  upon  the  recommendation  of  the  General  As- 
sembly. Political  opinion  was  to  have  no  influence  in  the 
appointment  or  dismissal  of  any  officer. 

It  was  proposed  to  form  the  capital  of  the  bank  from  the 
invested  money  in  the  State  treasury,  which  was  composed 
of  United  States,  bank,  road  and  other  stocks.  The  bank 
stock  amounted  to  about  $520,000,  and  there  was  $335,105 
invested  in  United  States  3  per  cents.  Other  funds 
amounted  to  about  $80,500,  making  in  all  about  $935,600. 
The  augmentation  of  this  capital  was  provided  for  as  fol- 


1  Report  of  Mr.  Teackle,  Chairman  of  Select  Committee  on  a 
State's  Bank,  House  of  Del.,  Dec.  session,  1829.  Report  of  Com- 
mittee of  Ways  and  Means  on  a  State  Bank,  1833.  *  Ibid. 


Banking  in  Maryland,  1810-1864.  83 

;x4S$j 

lows :  The  bank  officers,  with  the  approval  of  the  Governor, 
Council  and  Legislature,  were  to  be  authorized  to  purchase, 
at  a  rate  not  exceeding  the  par  value  of  the  actual  capital 
paid  in,  any  one  or  more  of  the  banks  then  existing  in  the 
State.  To  pay  for  it,  the  bank  was  to  issue  2o-year  5  per 
cent,  bonds,  for  payment  of  both  principal  and  interest  of 
which,  the  faith  of  the  State  was  to  be  pledged.  Two  per 
cent,  semi-annually  of  the  amount  of  the  bonds  was  to  be 
set  aside  and  invested  by  the  bank  for  the  redemption  of  the 
bonds.  After  the  payment  of  the  debt  the  banks  which  had 
been  purchased  were  to  be  merged  into,  and  their  funds  were 
to  form  a  part  of  the  capital  of  the  State's  bank. 

This  scheme  introduced  the  idea  of  consolidation  and  cen- 
tralization by  the  absorption  of  some  or  all  of  the  old  banks. 
This  principle  was  further  extended  by  provision  for  a  sys- 
tem of  offices  and  agents  embracing  all  the  counties  and 
important  centers.  These  offices  were  to  be  for  discount 
and  deposit;  their  capital  was  to  be  apportioned  them  from 
the  central  bank. 

The  advancement  of  the  counties  was  one  of  the  objects 
especially  aimed  at,  and  in  furtherance  of  this,  money  was 
to  be  advanced  on  real  estate  security  at  a  rate  of  interest 
not  exceeding  5  per  cent,  per  annum. 

The  profits  of  the  bank  were  to  be  at  the  disposal  of  the 
State  Treasurer,  though  if  the  semi-annual  dividends  ex- 
ceeded 5  per  cent.,  the  excess  was  to  be  turned  over  to  in- 
crease the  capital  of  the  bank.  The  State  Treasurer  was 
to  be  allowed  to  anticipate  an  accruing  dividend  by  drawing 
on  the  bank  for  its  probable  amount. 

The  Attorney-General  and  the  Treasurers  of  the  State 
were  made  ex-officio  directors  of  the  bank.  For  discounts 
upon  personal  security  two  good  names  were  to  be  required, 
otherwise  a  deposit  of  bonds  or  precious  metals  was  made 
necessary;  accommodation  notes  were  not  to  be  discounted 
without  a  similar  deposit.  No  president,  director,  officer  or 
agent  of  the  bank  was  to  be  allowed  to  be  a  borrower,  or 
endorser,  or  receive  discounts. 


84  History  of  State  Banking  in  Maryland. 

There  were  two  peculiar  features  in  the  proposed  bill;  the 
first  was  the  power  of  issuing  "bettering  notes,"  or  notes 
bearing  interest  at  the  rate  of  one  cent  a  day,  redeemable 
both  in  principal  and  interest  at  three  months  after  presenta- 
tion; the  denomination  of  the  note  was  to  be  $100.  The 
second  experiment  was  the  sale  of  certificates  of  stock  of  a 
face  value  of  $100  each,  bearing  interest  at  3  per  cent,  per 
annum,  to  persons  having  notes  of  the  bank  to  an  amount 
of  $1000.  Eighty  dollars  of  the  bank's  notes  were  to  be 
exchangeable  for  a  certificate  of  stock.  This  stock  was  to 
be  redeemable  at  pleasure  by  the  State. 

Provision  was  made  for  periodic  inspection  and  reports  to 
the  Assembly;  $500,000  in  coin  had  to  be  in  hand  before 
opening. 

The  leading  points  of  this  proposed  legislation  were 
strong.  As  an  instrument  to  centralize  and  make  uniform 
the  State  banking  system,  it  would  have  been  an  immense 
step  in  advance.  A  great  economy  in  banking  would  have 
been  effected,  while  by  the  branch  office  and  agency  system, 
less  advanced  districts  would  have  received  the  assistance 
necessary  for  their  development.  The  experience  of  the 
country  banks  from  1814  to  1820  pointed  in  this  direction. 
The  danger  of  such  an  institution  from  the  political  side 
would  be  great. 

In  1829  the  Legislature  appointed  a  committee  to  con- 
sider the  petitions  for  the  bank;  it  made  a  careful  investiga- 
tion and  reported  favorably.  The  bill  received  a  lengthy 
discussion,  but  finally  was  rejected  by  a  vote  of  46  to  23. 
Similar  committees  had  the  same  matter  referred  to  them  in 
the  various  sessions  of  1830-33;  invariably  the  report  was 
favorable,  but  a  bill  could  never  be  carried  through  the 
Assembly.1 

In  the  formation  of  the  bill  just  described,  much  study  was 
devoted  by  the  committee  to  the  foundation  and  operation  of 
other  State's  banks  already  organized,  especially  that  of 

1  Niles,  Feb.  13,  1830. 


Banking  in  Maryland,  1810-1864.  85 

South  Carolina.  The  State's  banks  of  Georgia,  Alabama, 
Tennessee,  Louisiana,  Indiana,  Ohio,  Florida,  Kentucky 
and  New  York  were  also  carefully  examined,  and  corre- 
spondence was  entered  into  with  officers  of  these  banks.1 

In  1837  the  question  of  a  State  bank  was  revived.  The 
House  of  Delegates  ordered  that  the  Committee  on  the 
Currency  "inquire  into  the  expediency  and  practicability  of 
changing  the  banking  system  of  the  State  in  such  a  way  as 
might  lead  to  the  establishment  of  a  State  bank  *  *  * 
by  a  union  of  all  such  solvent  banks  of  the  State  as  may  be 
willing  to  convert  themselves  into  branches  of  the  State's 
bank  by  transferring  to  it  all  their  stock  and  assets."  All 
the  banks  without  exception  expressed  disapproval  of  the 
scheme  and  their  unwillingness  to  enter  into  it,  consequently 
it  was  immediately  dropped.2 

ii.  The  Merchants' Bank  Charter. 

(a).  Uniform  Regulation  of  Banks. 

Up  to  1834  the  major  part  of  the  legislation  affecting 
banks  was  the  charter  regulations  of  the  separate  banks;  very 
few  general  laws  applicable  to  all  had  been  passed.  The 
various  charters  differed  considerably  in  their  provisions, 
as  has  been  shown.  A  considerable  step  toward  uniformity 
was  taken  in  1835,  when  all  Baltimore  banks  were  made  to 
conform  to  the  charter  of  the  Merchants'  Bank  of  Balti- 
more. This  charter  was  given  early  in  1835,  and  new  banks 
which  were  established  in  Baltimore  after  this  date  were  sim- 
ply brought  under  its  provisions.  The  old  banks  came  upon 
the  same  basis  when  in  1835  and  following  years  acts  were 
passed  continuing  their  charters.  In  the  case  of  the  banks 
which  had  been  continued  to  1845  by  the  Act  of  1821,  chap- 
ter 131,  in  return  for  their  agreement  to  construct  the 
Boonsboro  road,  the  new  regulations  could  not  be  intro- 
duced until  after  the  termination  of  the  old  charter.  The 

1  Report  of  Select  Committee  on  a  State's  Bank,  1829.  Ibid.,  1830, 
pp.  8  ff.  and  48  ;  also  p.  33.  Report  of  Committee  of  Ways  and 
Means  upon  a  State's  Bank,  1833. 

J  Report  of  the  Committee  on  Currency,  1838,  p.  5. 


86  History  of  State  Banking  in  Maryland. 

Marine  and  the  Farmers'  and  Merchants'  Banks  were  ex- 
tended to  I856;1  the  Mechanics'  and  the  Franklin  to  i857;a 
the  Commercial  and  Farmers'  and  the  Baltimore  to  1858; 
the  Union  to  1859.  In  return  they  were  to  become  subject 
to  the  regulations  contained  in  the  charter  of  the  Merchants' 
Bank,  to  relinquish  the  exclusive  right  of  banking  in  Balti- 
more and  to  suffer  additional  taxation. 

The  more  important  changes  which  were  introduced  in  the 
charter  of  the  Merchants'  Bank  were  the  following:  The 
president  and  directors  had  to  be  citizens  of  Maryland,  not 
of  the  United  States  merely,  as  previously.  Issues  might 
not  exceed  the  amount  of  the  capital  paid  in;  the  total 
amount  of  debts  exclusive  of  issues  was  limited  to  the  same 
amount.  Formerly  the  total  debts  might  equal  twice  the 
capital.  The  president  and  directors  in  their  corporate  ca- 
pacity could  not  hold  any  part  of  the  capital  of  their  bank, 
nor  make  any  loans  on  a  pledge  of  stock,  nor  receive  the 
same  as  collateral  security  for  any  money  loaned,  except  for 
doubtful  debts  previously  contracted.  Debts  due  to  a  bank 
by  a  stockholder  had  to  be  settled  before  he  could  transfer 
his  stock,  unless  the  president  and  directors  allowed  other- 
wise. Real  estate  falling  into  a  bank's  hands  had  to  be  dis- 
posed of  within  five  years.  The  banks  were  empowered  to 
invest  in  Maryland,  Baltimore  and  United  States  bonds. 
Fifty  stockholders  controlling  1000  shares  could  call  a  gen- 
eral meeting  of  the  stockholders. 

The  Legislature  reserved  the  power  to  regulate  the  de- 
nominations of  bank  notes.  It  required  the  banks  to  act  as 
commissioners  of  loans  when  desired.  In  case  of  suspen- 
sion of  specie  payments,  interest  at  12  per  cent,  per  annum 
might  be  demanded,  if  the  assets  of  the  bank  were  sufficient 
to  pay  it;  otherwise  as  much  above  6  per  cent,  was  recover- 
able as  the  assets  would  pay.3  The  law  provided  for  the  pro 

1  Md.  Laws,  1834,  ch.  274.  *  Cf.  ibid.,  1844,  ch.  294. 

8  To  place  all  the  banks  upon  the  same  footing,  the  rate  was  -made 
6  per  cent,  until  1845,  by  the  law  of  1841,  ch.  41.  The  country 
banks  were  subject  to  the  general  law  of  1818,  ch.  177,  which  required 
interest  at  6  per  cent. 


Banking  in  Maryland,  1810-1864.  87 

rata  distribution  of  all  assets  in  case  of  suspension  of  specie 
payments. 

The  country  banks  were  likewise  placed  upon  a  common 
footing  by  the  Acts  of  1836,  chapter  239,  and  1842,  chapter 
25 1,1  which  extended  their  charters  to  dates  varying  from 
1855  to  1860.  All  were  required  to  send  to  the  treasurer  an 
annual  report  of  their  condition.  Through  this  act  inspec- 
tion by  the  State  became  a  protection  of  the  general  inter- 
ests, and  was  not  done  by  the  State  as  stockholder,  inasmuch 
as  the  State  had  only  subscribed  in  two  or  three  of  these 
banks.  The  payment  of  the  school  tax  was  continued  and 
a  new  tax,  a  bonus  of  $1.25  per  $100  of  capital  paid  in,  was 
imposed.  Notes  under  $5  were  prohibited,  and  the  State 
reserved  the  right  to  regulate  the  denominations  of  issues 
after  1845.  The  charters  were  to  become  void  on  failure  to 
pay  specie. 

(&).  Increased  Taxation. 

An  additional  tax  was  imposed  in  each  case  as  the  condi- 
tion of  a  continuation  of  the  charter  after  1845.  The  banks 
of  Baltimore  were  required  to  pay  in  three  annual  instal- 
ments a  bonus  of  $75,000,  proportioned  to  the  amount  of 
capital  of  each  bank.  The  country  banks  whose  charters 
were  renewed  had  to  pay,  as  stated  above,  $1.25  for  every 
$100  of  capital  paid  in,  as  a  bonus  to  the  State. 

The  new  banks  which  were  established  during  the  expan- 
sion of  1829-36  were  taxed,  in  addition  to  the  tax  for  the 
school  fund,  $3.75  per  $100  of  capital  paid  in,  and  at  the 
same  rate  for  additions  to  capital.  In  one  or  two  cases  the 
rate  varied  slightly.  These  taxes  were  payable  in  annual  in- 
stalments within  three  years. 

An  attempt  was  made  in  1835  by  the  municipal  authorities 
of  Baltimore  to  lay  a  tax  upon  the  stock  of  banks.2  The 
Legislature  decided  this  to  be  in  violation  of  its  pledge 

1  Cf.  Md.  Laws,  1843,  ch.  95. 

1  Md.  Laws,  1834,  ch.  274.  Ibid.,  1836,  ch.  239.  Ibid.,  1842, 
ch.  251.  Ibid.,  1843,  ch.  95. 


88  History  of  State  Banking  in  Maryland. 

given  in  the  Act  of  1821,  chapter  131,  to  impose  no  addi- 
tional tax  until  1845.  To  prevent  discrimination  between 
the  banks,  the  city  was  also  forbidden  to  tax  banks  incorpo- 
rated since  that  act.1 

In  i84i2  the  State's  indebtedness  required  extra  taxation 
to  meet  its  expenses.  All  bank  stock  was  taxed  at  the  rate 
of  twenty  cents  on  the  $100,  in  addition  to  taxes  on  real  and 
other  personal  property.  The  banks  objected  strenuously 
to  this  burden,  and  claimed  it  was  a  violation  of  the  State's 
pledge  to  impose  no  further  tax  until  i845-3  The  loan  had 
been  obtained  from  the  banks,  now  they  were  taxed  to  pay 
it.  Considerable  trouble  was  met  in  the  collection  of  this 
tax.  To  facilitate  its  collection  banks  which  had  loaned  the 
State  in  1841  were  allowed,  upon  notice  to  the  treasurer,  to 
issue  orders  upon  the  State  treasury  up  to  the  amount  of 
each  one's  loan.  These  were  receivable  in  payment  of  the 
direct  tax  upon  bank  stock.  They  were  not  to  be  reissued 
by  the  treasurer.4  Still  collection  of  the  tax  continued  to  be 
impeded,  so  in  1843  the  bank  officers  were  required  to  retain 
from  the  profits  and  pay  the  treasurer  the  amount  of  the  tax.* 
However,  in  January,  1845, tne  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States  decided  that  the  banks  which  had  been  incorporated 
prior  to  the  Act  of  1821,  chapter  131,  were  exempt  from  the 
tax  during  the  continuance  of  their  charters.  This  freed 
six  Baltimore  banks  from  payment  of  the  tax  until  March 
10,  1846,  and  the  money  which  had  been  paid  in  by  them  was 
refunded. 

12.    Crisis  0/1834  and  MS  Effects. 

A  tax  of  one-half  of  one  per  cent,  was  imposed  on  all  bank 
stock  sold  at  auction  by  the  Act  of  1843,  chapter  293. 

The  crisis  which  occurred  in  1834  was  felt  comparatively 
little  in  the  East,  and  was  of  short  duration.  It  was  precipi- 
tated to  great  extent  by  the  hostile  relations  existing  between 
the  administration  and  the  United  States  Bank.  In  1833, 

^Id.  Laws,  1835,  ch.  142.  2  Ibid.,  1841,  ch.  23. 

8  Ibid.,  1821,  ch.  131.  Mbid.,  1841,  ch.  291. 

5  Ibid.,  1843,  ch.  289. 


Banking  in  Maryland,  1810-1864.  89 

when  the  national  deposits  were  removed,  the  bank  was 
compelled  to  contract  its  discounts  suddenly.  This  occurred 
before  the  new  State  banks  which  had  been  chartered  were 
fully  organized,  hence  they  were  unready  to  relieve  the  situ- 
ation. The  branches  of  the  United  States  Bank,  too,  were 
very  stringent  in  their  relations  with  the  State  banks,  and 
prevented  an  active  response  to  the  demand  for  discounts. 
A  rapid  retrenchment  occurred;  on  January  I,  1834,  the  dis- 
counts of  the  Maryland  banks  were  $10,273,000,  and  the  cir- 
culation was  $2,071,000.  Within  six  months  the  discounts 
had  been  reduced  by  $1,100,000  and  the  circulation  by  $800,- 
ooo;  the  specie  on  hand  was  maintained  at  $630,000,  or  one- 
half  the  circulation.  After  June,  1834,  the  influence  of  the 
newly-chartered  banks  began  to  be  felt  and  the  discount  and 
circulation  lines  began  to  rise.  The  rate  of  discount  dropped 
rapidly  from  30-36  per  cent,  per  annum  to  10-12  per  cent, 
and  lower,  and  the  tightness  of  the  money  market  was  soon 
relieved. 

To  this  crisis  was  charged  the  failure  of  three  banks  in 
Maryland.  Maladministration  was  the  cause  of  bankruptcy 
in  each  case;  the  removal  of  the  national  deposits  from  the 
United  States  Bank  and  the  resulting  restriction  were  the 
occasion  of  it.  The  greatest  of  these  failures  and  the  most 
wide-reaching  in  its  effects  was  that  of  the  Bank  of  Mary- 
land. It  was  the  first  bank  chartered  in  the  State,  and  it  re- 
ceived an  exceptionally  liberal  charter.1  The  State  was  not 
a  stockholder  in  it,  nor  did  it  render  any  reports  to  the  treas- 
urer. Its  early  administration  was  vigorous  and  successful.* 
During  the  years  1816-24,  in  common  with  the  other  banks, 
it  suffered  severe  losses,  due  partly  to  the  character  of  its 
officers,  who  were  now  conducting  it  sluggishly  in  contrast 
to  its  former  active  policy.  An  investigation  of  its  affairs 
was  made  in  1824,  which  revealed  the  fact  that  $100,000  had 
been  lost.  The  following  statement  was  rendered  to  the 
stockholders  February  10,  1824:* 

1  See  p.  29.  *  Ibid. 

1  Observations  on  an  Act  to  Establish  a  Bank,  etc.     T.  Ellicott, 
Bank  of  Maryland  Conspiracy,  etc. 


90  History  of  State  Banking  in  Maryland. 

ASSETS. 
Discounts — accommodation  notes. $206, 340.00 

"  business  notes .  .    .    .      49,765.00     $256,105.00 

Protested  notes  (bad) 74,912.00 

Overdrafts  (doubtful) $2,926.00 

"          (bad) 197.00 

"          (good) 267.00           3,390.00 

Due  from  other  banks 16,375.00 

Specie 18,969.00 

Real  estate 24,765.00 

Road  stock 22,324.00 

Other  assets 6,314.00 

$423,154.00 

Deduct — Protested  notes  (bad)  .    $74,912.00 
Estimated  loss  on  doubt- 
ful notes 12,870.00 

On  banking  house  .  .  13,189.00 
On  road  stock  ....  16,695.00 
Expenses 2.528.00  120,194.00 

Real  value  of  assets,  $302,960.00 

LIABILITIES. 

Capital $300,000.00 

Circulation 43,736.00 

Discounts  received 6,963.00 

Due  to  other  banks 2,185.00 

Deposits 56,438.00 

Contingent  profit $13,231.00 

Unpaid  dividends 574.00 

Other   liabilities 27         13,832.00 

Total  debts,  $423,154.00 

Deduct — Contingent  profits  .  .  .  $13,231.00 
Accruing  discounts  .  .  6,963.00 
Real  value  of  assets  .  .  302,960.00  323,154.00 

Loss,  $100,000.00 


Banking  in  Maryland,  1810-1864.  91 

It  is  thus  seen  that  one-third  of  the  capital  was  lost  in 
1824.  The  bank,  however,  continued  to  pay  dividends,  and, 
it  was  believed,  restored  no  portion  of  this  loss.1  This  is 
presumed  to  have  been  substantially  its  condition  in  1831, 
when  a  change  in  the  personnel  of  its  administration  oc- 
curred. A  radical  turn  in  its  policy  was  immediately  ob- 
servable. Its  business  was  extended  much  further  than  its 
limited  capital  permitted.  The  practice  of  paying  interest 
on  deposits  which  were  by  contract  to  remain  a  specified 
time,  was  begun.  In  1832  a  deposit  of  $335,000  was  ob- 
tained from  the  State.  Its  circulation  increased  enormously 
and  somewhat  of  an  apprehension  of  a  disaster  arose  in 
banking  circles.  At  the  Union  Bank  its  notes  were  re- 
ceived in  such  quantities  that  remonstrance  was  made  to 
the  directors  of  the  Bank  of  Maryland.  However,  daily  ex- 
changes were  still  effected.  The  expansion  of  business 
within  two  years  was  as  follows : 

AUG.  30, 1831.  SEPT.  24, 1833. 

Specie $8,525  $45,000 

Circulation 213,070  620,000 

Deposits 88,998  1,720,000 

Discounts 500,000  1,873,000 

In  October,  1833,  President  Ellicott,  of  the  Union  Bank, 
refused  their  notes  above  a  limited  amount.  The  Bank  of 
Maryland  tried  to  procure  aid  from  the  Secretary  of  the 
United  States  Treasury,  but  without  avail.  In  January  or 
February,  1834,  the  Union  Bank  loaned  it  $100,000  to  tide 
it  over  the  crisis.  However,  on  March  22,  1834,  it  was 
compelled  to  suspend.  An  investigation  revealed  the  fol- 
lowing facts:2  About  May,  1832,  a  partnership  had  been 
formed  by  the  president  and  two  directors  of  the  bank  and 
two  other  parties  to  deal  in  the  stock  of  the  bank.  Between 
May  22,  1832,  and  January  22,  1833,  900  shares  out  of  a 

1  T.  Ellicott,  Bank  of  Maryland  Conspiracy,  etc. 
»  Ibid. 


92  History  of  State  Banking  in  Maryland. 

total  of  1000  were  purchased  at  $500  per  share  (par  value 
$300)  out  of  the  funds  of  the  bank.  On  March  10  the  presi- 
dent and  directors  transferred  these  900  shares  of  stock  to 
the  partnership,  and,  to  pay  for  them,  discounted  their  notes 
for  $450,000,  payable  on  presentation  in  money  or  stock  of 
the  bank.  They  were  thus  placed  in  control  of  the  bank. 
With  the  bank's  funds  they  also  subscribed  for  the  major 
part  of  the  stock  of  the  General  Insurance  Company,  and 
created  the  partners,  president  and  managers  of  it.  A  pur- 
chase of  6000  shares  of  Union  Bank  stock  was  made  by  one 
of  the  partners,  for  which  he  gave  his  note  for  $510,000  and 
deposited  as  security  bonds  belonging  to  the  Bank  of  Mary- 
land to  the  amount  of  $500,000.  The  partners  were  through 
these  transactions  indebted  to  the  bank  $950,000. 

When  the  crisis  of  1834  came  on,  they,  by  powers  of  attor- 
ney, conveyed  their  stock  to  the  president  and  withdrew  their 
notes  from  the  bank ;  in  their  place  was  substituted  his  indi- 
vidual checks.  Bank  of  Maryland  stock  also  was  deposited 
with  the  General  Insurance  Company,  as  security  for  some 
policies,  by  the  president  of  the  bank  in  March,  1834.  The 
proceeds  of  these  policies  were  deposited  in  the  Bank  of 
Maryland  to  the  credit  of  the  president.  He  checked  upon 
this  credit  to  parties  who  used  it  to  counterbalance  obliga- 
tions to  the  bank.  On  March  21,  the  General  Insurance 
Company  returned  the  stock  held  by  them  to  the  bank  and 
cancelled  their  policies.  The  chief  losses  thrown  upon  the 
bank  by  the  partnership  were: 

Loss  on  900  shares  of  Bank  of  Maryland  Stock  .    .  $270,000 

Loss  on  Union  Bank  Stock 40,000 

Loss  on  General  Insurance  Co.  Stock 30,000 

Total  .    .    .  $340,000 

Immediately  after  the  failure  of  the  bank  its  affairs  were 
placed  in  the  hands  of  a  trustee,  with  whom  afterwards  two 
others  were  associated.  Bitter  enmity  existed  between  all 
concerned  in  the  fraud  and  the  trustees,  and  polemic  after 


Banking  in  Maryland,  1810-1864.  93 

polemic  was  published.  No  report  was  rendered  to  the 
creditors  for  seventeen  months.  Finally  they  became  so  ex- 
asperated that  they  mobbed  the  houses  of  all  the  parties  con- 
cerned in  the  partnership,  and  there  was  considerable  de- 
struction of  property.  The  mob  held  sway  from  five  days. 
Upon  petition  to  the  Legislature  an  indemnity  of  $102,550 
was  granted  to  those  who  suffered  by  it.1 

The  trustees  were  in  disagreement  among  themselves. 
Two  of  them  allowed  the  acceptance  of  $400,000  from  the 
president  of  the  bank  to  cover  his  obligations,  after  the  trust 
had  been  conferred.  The  president  pledged  his  private  es- 
tate to  meet  the  debts  of  the  bank,  and  suits  against  various 
parties  were  instituted  for  sums  aggregating  over  $600,000, 
a  large  part  of  which,  it  was  charged,  was  recovered 
through  unjust  influence  over  the  court.  By  these  means 
sufficient  funds  were  collected  to  cover  all  claims  against  the 
bank,  although  it  was  at  first  thought  the  creditors  would 
lose  almost  everything.  The  following  tables  show  the  con- 
dition of  the  bank  at  the  time  of  its  failure,  and  in  an  imper- 
fect way,  how  far  liquidation  had  proceeded  in  1838,  when 
a  dividend  of  ten  cents  on  the  dollar  was  made  to  the 
creditors. 

STATEMENT  OF  THE  CONDITION  OF  THE  BANK  OF 
MARYLAND,  MARCH  22,  1834.* 

LIABILITIES. 

Capital $300.000 

Circulation 624,3^.5 

Deposits  bearing  Interest 1,069,752 

Other  Deposits 371,256 

Profit  and  Loss ...  18,551 

Other  Liabilities 735,660 

$3,109,614 

1  Scharf,  History  cf  Maryland,  Vol.  II,  p.  182. 

3  Report  of  the  Case  of  Bank  of  Maryland  vs.  Sam'l  Poultney  and 
Wm.  M.  Ellicott,  Harford  Co.  Court,  1836,  p.  49. 


94  History  of  State  Banking  in  Maryland. 

ASSETS. 

Bank  of  Maryland  Stock $   400,000 

Discounts i,37r>394 

Specie 32»9~7 

Real  Estate 34-5I8 

Stocks,  etc 1,243,046 


$3,081,935 

Deficit 27,679 

$3,109,614 

CONDITION  OF  THE  BANK  MAY  20,  1838. 1 

Current  Funds $131,626 

Bills  and  Notes* 566,644 

Due  on  Open  Accounts 133,643 

—     $831,421 

Claims  of  every  kind,  including  200  shares  of  stock,      614,474 

$216,947 

*This  includes  $400,000  passed  to  the  credit  of  the 
bank  after  its  failure. 

The  above  statements  do  not  indicate  the  character  of  the 
assets.  The  trustees,  in  their  testimony  in  the  case  of  the 
Bank  of  Maryland  vs.  Sam'l  Poultney,  gave  as  their  opinion 
that  the  losses  on  the  assets  would  be  small.  The  creditors 
ultimately  lost  little.  The  greatest  loss  fell  upon  those  who, 
in  the  height  of  the  panic,  disposed  of  their  claims  at  40  to  50 
per  cent,  discount.2 

The  failure  of  the  Bank  of  Maryland  immediately  caused 
runs  upon  the  other  banks,  but  they  withstood  them  without 
serious  difficulty. 

The  Commercial  Bank  of  Millington  failed  in  1836.  Its 
nominal  capital  was  $100,000,  and  it  had  been  chartered  only 
in  1832.  Its  president  was  a  speculator,  who  immediately 
before  the  failure  of  the  Millington  Bank  organized  another 

1  Report  of  the  Case  of  Bank  of  Maryland  vs  Sam'l  Poultney  and 
Wm.  M.  Ellicott,  p.  49.  *  Niles,  1834,  Vol.  XLV,  p.  65. 


Banking  in  Maryland,  1810-1864.  95 

in  Hagerstown  on  deposits  in  the  old  bank  as  capital.  The 
amount  of  its  assets  and  debts  is  unknown.1 

The  Susquehanna  Bank,  which  had  failed  in  1820,  was  re- 
vived. It  sustained  the  run  upon  it  made  at  the  failure  of 
the  Bank  of  Maryland2  with  difficulty,  and  soon  after  suc- 
cumbed. It  must  have  satisfied  its  creditors  in  some  way, 
inasmuch  as  it  resumed  business  again  in  1836.  The  loss  in 
each  of  these  cases  was  probably  small,  since  the  character 
of  these  banks  was  generally  known  and  their  business  was 
very  limited. 

The  Salisbury  Bank,  which  had  commenced  operations  in 
November,  1830,  was  compelled  to  suspend  for  a  time  in 
April,  1834;  however,  it  soon  resumed.3  In  the  liquidation 
of  debts  to  banks  their  notes  were  receivable,  consequently 
immediately  after  a  failure  the  debtors  of  the  bank  were  an£- 
ious  to  purchase  at  a  discount  the  notes  of  the  insolvent  bank 
to  pay  their  obligation.  On  this  account  the  Legislature 
enacted  in  1835  that  whenever  a  bank  failed  to  pay  on  de- 
mand in  specie,  and  was  in  condition  to  be  proceeded 
against  under  the  Act  of  1818,  chapter  177,*  the  notes  of  the 
bank  were  not  receivable  for  debt  to  the  bank  unless  they 
had  been  held  by  the  debtor  at  the  time  of  failure.6  The 
same  law  provided  that  to  settle  the  affairs  of  a  bank,  if 
stockholders  holding  the  major  portion  of  the  stock  so  de- 
sired, the  chancellor  or  county  court  might  appoint  a  trustee, 
instead  of  the  bank  officials.  This  law  was  a  direct  outcome 
of  the  Bank  of  Maryland  trouble.6 

13.    Crisis  and  Suspension  0/1837. 

The  period  of  1822-37  was  one  of  almost  unbroken  pros- 
perity in  the  eastern  part  of  the  United  States;  the  difficul- 
ties of  1825,  1828  and  1834  were  of  short  duration,  and  their 
effects  in  the  Eastern  States  were  not  so  great.  Several  cir- 
cumstances combined  to  produce  the  panic  of  1837.  In  the 

1  Niles,  June  7,  1834.  *  Ibid.,  Feb.  15,  1834. 

8  Ibid.,  Apr.  26,  1834.  *  See  p.  57. 

'  Md.  Laws,  1834,  ch.  305.  •  See  p.  93. 


96  History  of  State  Banking  in  Maryland. 

first  place,  the  long-continued  prosperity  led  naturally  to  a 
dangerous  expansion  in  industrial  enterprises  of  all  sorts. 
The  spirit  of  speculation  had  been  growing  for  a  decade.  In 
Maryland  the  special  form  of  speculation  was  in  the  various 
improvement  schemes.  Canals,  railroads,  turnpike  roads, 
etc.,  were  proposed  and  entered  upon  with  zeal.  The  Bal- 
timore and  Ohio,  the  Baltimore  and  Washington,  the  Sus- 
quehanna,  the  Philadelphia,  Wilmington  and  Baltimore 
Railroads,  the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  and  the  Chesapeake  and 
Delaware  Canals,  and  roads  too  numerous  to  mention,  were 
all  under  way  at  this  time  in  Maryland.  They  were  to  a 
great  extent  local  projects,  and  drew  their  resources  from 
within  her  bounds.  The  public  lands  were  an  object  of  in- 
vestment generally. 

Secondly,  the  price  of  cotton  had  been  low  for  several 
years,  and  in  1836  the  wheat  crop  was  a  failure.  The  bal- 
ance of  trade  had  continued  against  the  United  States  for 
some  years,  and  specie  had  been  sent  abroad  to  adjust  her 
balances. 

A  third  cause  of  the  crisis  was  the  general  apprehension 
of  financial  trouble  at  the  closing  of  the  United  States  Bank 
and  its  restriction  to  enable  it  to  adjust  itself  to  the  new 
conditions. 

The  Baltimore,  Philadelphia  and  New  York  banks  sus- 
pended specie  payments  on  May  12,  1837,  shortly  after  the 
specie  circular  had  been  put  into  operation,  which  threw 
back  upon  the  banks  their  notes  for  redemption.  At  the 
same  time  shipment  of  specie  abroad  continued,  and  the 
government  made  heavy  demands  upon  the  deposit  banks. 
Specie  in  Maryland  commanded  a  premium  of  6  per  cent. 
To  retain  it  the  banks  were  compelled  to  suspend. 

In  Maryland  this  was  altogether  a  protective  measure; 
the  banks  were  in  a  sound  condition.  At  the  time  of  sus- 
pension they  had  one  dollar  in  specie  in  their  vaults  for  every 
three  of  notes  in  circulation,  which  at  that  time  was  regarded 
as  the  criterion  of  soundness.  The  ratio  of  specie  to  circu- 
lation and  deposits  was  as  one  to  eight.  The  country  banks 


Banking  in  Maryland,  1810-1864.  97 

were  uniformly  in  as  good  condition  as  the  city  banks.  All 
but  four  of  them  had  been  recently  organized,  and  their  ope- 
rations were  not  yet  far  extended. 

At  the  first  meeting  of  the  General  Assembly  after  the 
beginning  of  the  suspension  a  Committee  on  the  Currency 
was  appointed  to  examine  into  the  solvency  of  the  banks  and 
their  ability  to  redeem  their  notes  ultimately,  and  to  report 
whether  or  not  they  had  forfeited  their  charters  by  suspend- 
ing. The  committee  conducted  its  examination  by  means 
of  sworn  statements  from  bank  officers  in  reply  to  certain 
general  and  special  questions.  These  replies  were  after- 
wards verified  by  the  committee  by  a  personal  investiga- 
tion of  the  books  of  the  banks.1  The  committee  pronounced 
the  banks  without  exception  to  be  in  a  sound  and  highly 
creditable  condition. 

There  could,  however,  be  no  doubt  that  the  banks  had 
rendered  their  charters  liable  to  forfeiture.  The  general 
law  of  1818,  chapter  177,  declared  all  charters  voidable  on 
suspension.  This  had  been  reaffirmed  for  Baltimore  banks, 
when,  by  the  recharter  law  of  1834,  chapter  274,  they  became 
subject  to  the  eleventh  and  thirteenth  sections  of  the  charter 
of  the  Merchants'  Bank,  and  for  the  country  banks  by  the 
law  of  1836,  chapter  239. 2  In  addition  to  this  the  charters 
of  the  Frederick  County,  Western,  Farmers'  and  Planters', 
Chesapeake,  Citizens',  Hamilton  and  Mineral  Banks  specific- 
ally reserved  the  right  to  revoke  the  charters  on  failure  to 
pay  in  specie. 

The  banks  expressed  their  readiness  to  resume  at  any 
time  the  Legislature  might  appoint,  but  they  feared  the  con- 
sequences if  they  were  compelled  to  resume  before  the  banks 
north  of  them,  to  which  they  were  heavily  indebted.  Mary- 
land banks  were  owed  balances  by  the  banks  of  the  Southern 
States,  which  were  still  in  suspension.  Their  specie  would 
have  been  drained  off  to  pay  their  Northern  balances,  and  at 
the  same  time  they  would  have  had  no  means  of  replenishing 

1  Report  of  the  Select  Committee  on  the  Currency,  1838,  p.  i. 
J  See  p.  87. 

1 


98  History  of  State  Banking  in  Maryland. 

themselves  except  by  purchase  at  a  heavy  premium.  On 
January  I,  1838,  the  Baltimore  banks  were  in  debt  to  those 
of  New  York  and  Philadelphia  $730,000.  The  country  banks 
owed  no  balances  North.1 

The  committee  framed  its  recommendations  into  a  bill, 
which  was  passed  by  the  General  Assembly  in  March,  i838.2 
It  provided  that  every  bank  and  savings  institution  should 
transmit  to  the  State  Treasurer,  once  a  month  during  the 
suspension,  a  statement  under  oath  of  its  condition,  and  like- 
wise to  every  other  bank  and  savings  institution  in  the  State 
a  similar  statement  at  least  once  a  month  during  the  sus- 
pension. The  circulation  during  the  suspension  was  limited 
to  three  times  the  amount  of  the  specie  in  the  bank's  posses- 
sion, and  after  resumption  they  were  not  allowed  to  issue 
more  than  the  amount  of  their  actual  capital.  No  notes  nor 
certificates  of  deposit  of  a  less  denomination  than  $5  were 
to  be  issued  after  May,  1838.  The  date  for  resumption  was 
fixed  at  January  I,  1839,  or  within  thirty  days  after  resump- 
tion by  the  banks  of  New  York,  Philadelphia  and  Virginia, 
should  they  resume  previously  to  that  date.  Banks  comply- 
ing with  these  conditions  were  freed  from  the  penalties  in- 
curred by  the  suspension  of  specie  payments  and  the  issue 
of  small  notes.  Against  banks  not  complying  the  Attorney- 
General  was  to  have  issued  a  scire  facias,  to  show  cause  why 
their  charters  should  not  be  revoked. 

These  provisions  were  made  with  a  view  to  preparing  the 
banks  for  resumption.  The  New  York  banks  were  com- 
pelled by  a  State  law  to  resume  specie  payments  by  May  10, 
1838.  The  Philadelphia  banks  followed  in  August,  and 
those  of  Baltimore  immediately  afterward.  The  resumption 
caused  little  inconvenience  in  Maryland.  Discounts  were 
not  diminished  at  all. 

For  a  statement  of  the  condition  of  Maryland  banks  in 
January,  1838,  see  Appendix,  page  185. 


1  State  Banks,  p.  708.  "  Md.  Laws,  1837,  ch.  315. 


Banking  in  Maryland,  1810-1864.  99 

14.   Crisis  0/1839, 

The  prosperity  which  had  been  hoped  for  did  not  return 
with  resumption.  A  year  of  disaster  for  the  entire  country 
followed,  though  the  South  and  West  especially  felt  its  force. 
Maryland  had  become  involved  in  a  large  and  increasing 
debt  through  her  improvement  works,  whose  cost  far  ex- 
ceeded estimation,  and  from  which  no  returns  were  being 
received.  In  many  cases  work  came  to  a  standstill  through 
lack  of  funds,  and  thus  a  vast  amount  of  public  and  private 
capital  lay  locked  up.  Banks  among  others  were  heavy  in- 
vestors in  this  sort  of  stock. 

The  Bank  of  the  United  States,  owing  to  its  speculations, 
had  become  in  a  perilous  condition,  and  was  laboring  to  pro- 
duce another  suspension  in  order  to  shield  itself.  On  the 
loth  of  October,  1839,  it  suspended,  and  all  the  banks 
of  the  Union  except  those  of  New  England  and  New  York 
followed.  The  failure  of  the  Bank  of  the  United  States  fell 
very  heavily  upon  Baltimore,  where  originally  over  $4,000,- 
ooo  of  its  capital  was  subscribed ;  the  whole  capital  was  lost. 

Under  these  circumstances  the  banks  contracted  rapidly. 
Interest  rose  to  20  per  cent.  Just  before  the  suspension  the 
discounts  of  Maryland  banks  had  stood  at  $16,400,000,  and 
the  issues  at  $3,400,000.  By  the  first  of  January,  1840,  the 
discounts  had  fallen  $2,500,000  and  the  issues  $500,000. 

The  financial  condition  of  the  State,  too,  was  most 
wretched.  In  the  cause  of  internal  improvement,  Maryland 
had  subscribed  almost  $12,000,000,  and  had  become  involved 
in  a  debt  of  $5,500,000,  the  interest  upon  which  she  was  un- 
able at  that  time  to  keep  up.1  The  public  revenue  paid  the 
current  expenses  only.  No  system  of  direct  taxation  was  in 
use  in  the  State,  and  for  several  years  the  inconveniences  at- 
tendant upon  the  inauguration  of  one  were  felt.  The  laws 
taxing  real  and  personal  property  were  not  enforced  in  some 
counties.  The  negotiation  of  a  loan  abroad  failed  in  i837.2 

1  Scharf,  History  of  Maryland,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  211. 
*  Ibid.,  p.  208. 


100  History  of  State  Banking  in  Maryland. 

In  January,  1842,  the  State  was  driven  to  suspend  payment 
of  interest  on  its  debt.  Between  1837  and  1842  the  State 
borrowed  over  $500,000,  principally  from  the  banks.  The 
suspension  of  interest  payment  thus  directly  affected  them. 
At  the  same  time  lack  of  resources  necessitated  a  cessation 
of  work  on  canals  and  roads,  and  the  State  was  again  ap- 
pealed to  for  help. 

To  assist  the  improvement  companies,  which  were  in  dis- 
tress, specific  powers  of  issue  were  granted  in  a  number  of 
cases.  The  Baltimore  and  Ohio,1  the  Annapolis  and  Elk- 
ridge2  Railroad  Companies,  the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio3  and 
the  Tidewater*  Canal  Companies  were  empowered  to  issue 
up  to  $4,000,000  paper  variously  denominated  stock  orders, 
certificates  of  debt  or  toll  notes,  secured  by  bonds  of  the 
State  or  of  Baltimore  or  by  mortgage  of  property.  Other 
companies  by  their  charters  were  allowed  to  make  such 
issues;  many  made  them  without  legal  sanction.  The  or- 
ders issued  by  the  Corporation  of  Baltimore  and  the  Balti- 
more and  Ohio  Railroad  had  general  circulation,  and  were 
the  most  reliable  fractional  currency  after  the  disappearance 
of  specie.5 

.The  authorization  of  issues  of  individuals  upon  bond  was 
discussed  in  1838.  The  bond  proposed  was  to  be  of  five 
times  the  amount  issued,  and  was  to  be  filed  with  and  ap- 
proved by  the  clerk  of  the  county  court  where  issued.  The 
matter  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Currency,  which 
reported  unfavorably.6 

An  attempt  was  made  in  1842  to  put  an  end  to  all  issues 
made  without  legal  sanction.  Improvement  and  other  in- 
corporated companies,  except  such  as  were  allowed  to  do  so 
by  their  charters,  were  prohibited  from  issuing  any  sort  of 

1  Md.  Laws.  1840,  ch.  25.  2Ibid.,  1841,  ch.  168. 

3  Ibid.,  1841,  ch.  30.  *  Ibid.,  1841,  ch.  47. 

5  Scharf,  Hist,  of  Maryland,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  207  and  182.     Chronicles 
of  Baltimore,  pp.  491  and  495. 

6  Orders  for  the  Com.  on  the  Currency,  House  of  Delegates,  1837. 
Report  of  Com.  on  the  Currency,  1838,  p.  5. 


Banking  in  Maryland,  1810-1864.  101 

paper  to  circulate  as  money.  The  penalty  was  both  corpo- 
rate and  individual  liability  to  pay  the  full  amount  issued.1 
At  the  end  of  1842  still  more  comprehensive  legislation  was 
passed,  prohibiting  every  one  except  banks  from  issuing  any- 
thing to  circulate  as  money,  under  penalty  of  $20  for  each 
offence.  Traders  forfeited  their  licenses  for  passing  such 
notes.  Besides  the  banks,  the  Baltimore  and  Ohio,  the  An- 
napolis and  Elkridge  Railroad  Companies,  and  the  Chesa- 
peake and  Ohio  Canal  Company  were  excepted  from  the 
operation  of  this  law.2 

The  position  of  Maryland  banks  with  reference  to  re- 
sumption was  similar  to  that  of  1838;  they  were  between  two 
fires,  neither  Pennsylvania  nor  Virginia  banks  were  paying 
in  specie,  hence  they  hesitated  to  take  the  risk  of  having  their 
specie  drawn  off.  A  special  committee  of  the  Legislature 
consulted  the  officers  of  the  different  banks  in  regard  to  re- 
suming January  I,  1842.  With  two  exceptions  they  de- 
clared their  ability  to  resume  at  any  time,  but  they  unani- 
mously preferred  to  wait  until  after  resumption  in  Pennsyl- 
vania and  Virginia.  The  Legislature  set  May  i,  1842,'  and 
in  case  of  non-compliance  the  bank  forfeited  its  charter.  On 
March  18,  1842,  the  Pennsylvania  banks  resumed,  and  those 
of  Maryland  followed  without  hesitation. 

15.  Practice,  1837-44. 

The  banks  were  uniformly  administered  with  care  during 
the  suspensions  of  1837  and  1839.  There  was  a  gradual  ex- 
pansion of  discounts  from  1836  to  1839  to  meet  the  needs  of 
patrons  whom  the  stringency  was  pressing.  This  expan- 
sion was  not,  however,  carried  to  a  degree  which  imperilled 
the  solvency  of  the  banks.  The  increase  of  issues  was  com- 
paratively small  during  the  suspension  of  1837.  The  calling- 
in  of  paper  and  the  reduction  of  discounts  in  1839  was  sharp, 
and  caused  considerable  inconvenience.  Between  October, 
1839,  and  January,  1840,  discounts  were  diminished  $2,500,- 
ooo,  or  more  than  one-seventh.  Interest  rose  to  20  per  cent. 

1  Md.  Laws,  1841,  ch.  219.  *  Ibid.,  1841,  ch.  321. 

8  Ibid.,  1841,  ch.  302. 


102  History  of  State  Banking  in  Maryland. 

on  good  paper.  Soundness  was  not  sacrificed  to  profit. 
The  specie  reserve  was  maintained  above  one-third  of  the 
amount  of  the  circulation,  even  at  the  expense  of  purchasing 
specie  at  a  considerable  premium.  By  January  I,  1838, 
$425,000  in  specie  had  been  purchased  since  the  beginning 
of  the  suspension.1  Some  of  them  had  disposed  of  gold  and 
silver,  almost  entirely  in  the  form  of  foreign  coins,  at  a 
premium. 

The  dividends  made  at  this  time  do  not  indicate  excessive 
profits.  The  dividends  of  the  twenty-two  banks  in  opera- 
tion ranged  between  4  and  8  per  cent,  per  annum  during  the 
years  1837  and  1838.  Only  one  dividend  as  low  as  4  per 
cent.,  and  only  two  as  high  as  8  per  cent.  The  rates  of  nearly 
all  were  between  6  and  7^  per  cent.  Nor  was  the  surplus  of 
any  bank  materially  increased  during  the  suspension.  In 
some  cases  the  usual  rate  was  declared,  and,  profits  falling 
short  of  this  amount,  the  deficiency  was  made  up  from  the 
surplus.2  The  market  price  of  the  stock  of  the  various  banks 
at  this  time  points  to  the  same  conclusion.  They  were  nearly 
all  about  par;  only  one  or  two  commanded  any  considerable 
premium.3 

A  statement  of  the  discounts,  deposits,  circulation  and 
specie  of  Maryland  banks,  1834-40: 

fjAN.  DISCOUNTS.*  DEPOSITS.  CIRCULATION.  SPECIE. 

1834  $10,273  $3.567  $2,072  $       664 

J835  9,374  3,346  1,811  856 

1836  I3,5r9  4,967  3,052  1,180 

J837  14,7*8  4,390  3,221  1,015 

1838  15,821  4,329  3,084  1,342 

1839  16,365  4,652  3,797  1,443 

1840  13,934  3-379  2,937  !,222 

*Three  figures  omitted  throughout. 

During  the  suspension  all  specie  disappeared  from  circu- 
lation, and  all  the  banks  were  driven  to  violate  the  law  in  re- 

1  State  Banks,  p.  705.  3  Ibid. 

2  Report  of  Select  Committee  on  the  Currency,  1838. 


Banking  in  Maryland,  1810-1864,  .      103 

ceiving  and  passing  notes. of  less  denomination  than  $5. 
Three  banks  confessed  that  they  had  issued  such  notes, 
though  two  of  them  claimed  that  this  power  was  given  them 
by  their  charters,  and  had  not  been  revoked.1  The  Patapsco 
and  Frederick  County  Banks  made  this  claim;  the  Bank  of 
Westminster  also  issued  them.  Post  notes  were  issued  by 
two  banks  in  the  crisis  of  1837  and  1839.  The  Western 
Bank  had  out,  in  1839,  $150,700  in  post  notes.  The  law 
which  provided  for  resumption  of  specie  payments  allowed 
the  issue  of  small  notes  up  to  one-fifth  the  amount  of  the 
capital  paid  in.2  . 

The  Committee  on  the  Currency  investigated  the  charge 
that  directors  received  discounts  on  more  favorable  terms 
than  others.  The  banks  all  denied  that  they  discounted  to 
directors  as  such;  some  acknowledged  that  they  favored  di- 
rectors when  their  paper  was  as  good  as  that  of  others,  since 
they  had  difficulty  in  obtaining  discounts  at  other  banks. 
Most  of  the  banks  favored  their  regular  patrons  when  their 
paper  was  unquestionable.  Of  the  total  discounts  on  Jan- 
uary i,  1838,  of  $15,800,000,  $2,300,000  had  been  made  to 
directors.  The  highest  discount  to  any  one  director  was 
$121,500;  seven  directors  had  received  over  $40,000  each.3 

The  banks,  too,  almost  unanimously  confessed  that  during 
the  suspension  they  had  discounted  to  parties  on  condition 
that  the  notes  be  taken  to  a  distance  to  be  put  into  circula- 
tion.4 A  few,  too,  had  sent  out  agents,  chiefly  to  Southern 
points,  to  buy  up  their  notes  at  a  discount,5  though  the  ex- 
tent to  which  this  was  practiced  was  very  small.  Although  it 
was  prohibited  by  their  charters,  the  capital  of  all  the  banks 


1  Report  of  Select  Committee  on  Currency,  1838. 

*  Md.  Laws,  1841,  ch.  302.  The  issue  of  these  notes  was  prohibited 
after  November,  1842.  The  law  of  1844,  ch.  in,  allowed  the  issue  of 
notes  between  five  and  one  dollar  in  denomination  up  to  ten  per  cent, 
of  the  capital,  or  at  least  up  to  five  thousand  dollars  by  each  bank. 

s  Report  of  Select  Committee  on  the  Currency,  1838.  State  Banks, 
p.  709.  *  Ibid.  6  Ibid. 


104  History  of  State  Banking  in  Maryland. 

chartered  between  1829  and  1837,  with  a  few  exceptions,  was 
paid  partially  with  stock  notes.1 

1 6.  Effects  of  the  Crises  0/1837  and  1839. 

As  a  result  of  the  depression  quite  a  reduction  took  place 
in  the  banking  capital  of  the  State,  both  by  voluntary  lessen- 
ing by  the  stockholders  and  by  failure.  Four  banks  became 
insolvent,  the  Franklin  and  the  Citizens',  of  Baltimore;  the 
Susquehanna,  of  Port  Deposit,  and  the  Planters'  Bank  of  St. 
Mary's.  The  closing  of  the  Franklin  Bank  in  1841  was  only 
a  temporary  one,  due  partly  to  losses  and  partly  to  frauds 
practiced  upon  it.  The  public  was  subjected  to  no  loss  at 
all,  and  it  resumed  after  a  short  time.2 

The  failure  of  the  Citizens'  Bank  was  the  most  important 
of  those  that  occurred  at  this  time.  Its  nominal  capital  had 
been  $500,000  until  1843,  when  it  was  reduced  to  $334,000.* 
In  1844  the  stockholders  decided  to  close  up  its  affairs,  since 
it  had  suffered  such  heavy  losses  that  they  were  doubtful  of 
the  advisability  of  trying  to  restore  its  capital.4  Finally, 
however,  it  paid  all  creditors  in  full,  and  the  stockholders  re- 
ceived for  their  claims  $8  per  share  (par  value  $10).  Their 
loss,  therefore,  amounted  to  about  $65,000. 

The  Planters'  Bank  of  Prince  George's  County,  which, 
after  having  failed  in  1822,  had  been  restored  in  1832,  by  the 
desire  of  its  stockholders  decided  to  close  up  again  in  1842." 
Its  nominal  capital  was  $200,000.  It  was  able  to  meet  all  its 
liabilities. 

The  Susquehanna  Bank  had  been  very  weak  for  years.  It 
had  suspended  in  1818,  while  operating  under  the  name  of 
the  Susquehanna  Bank  and  Bridge  Company.  About  1824 
it  was  revived,  and  its  name  was  altered  to  the  Susquehanna 
Bank.  During  the  crisis  of  1834  it  required  assistance  to 
enable  it  to  keep  afloat.  Loans  were  made  by  various  banks 
of  Baltimore.  The  Union  Bank  and  the  Bank  of  Mary- 
land, before  its  failure,  had  each  sent  it  $50,000.  But  even 

1  Md.  Laws,  1843,  ch.  269.     2  Scharf,  Chronicles  of  Baltimore,  p.  503. 
8  Md.  Laws,  1842,  ch.  76.    4Ibid.,  1843,  ch.  240. 
5  Ibid.,  1842,  ch.  204. 


Banking  in  Maryland,  1810-1864.  105 

with  this  aid  it  was  unable  to  stand.  In  March  or  April, 
1834,  it  suspended  business  a  second  time  after  a  reckless 
attempt  to  get  into  circulation  as  many  notes  as  possible. 
Its  paid-in  capital  was  $393,319.  On  March  8,  1834,  three 
or  four  weeks  before  its  failure,  its  issue  amounted  to  $128,- 
925.  The  first  statement  after  its  failure,  September,  1834, 
shows  the  circulation  to  have  been  $328,359.  Likewise 
within  the  same  month  the  specie  had  been  reduced  from 
$74,289.07  to  ninety-seven  cents.  The  deficiency  of  assets 
March  8,  1834,  was  $93,085;  in  September,  1834,  it  had  in- 
creased to  $283,353.  After  its  failure  and  the  partial  settle- 
ment of  its  affairs,  its  leading  stockholders  decided,  in  1836, 
to  resuscitate  it  and  pay  its  liabilities.  In  some  manner  it 
was  able  to  struggle  to  its  feet  again,  though  the  old  creditors 
were  not  paid  off.  It  was  unable  to  stand  the  pressure  of 
1837,  and  in  January,  1838,  it  was  again  compelled  to  sus- 
pend. A  special  committee  of  the  Legislature  was  appointed 
to  examine  into  its  affairs,  and  they  advised  that  its  charter 
be  declared  forfeited.1 

These  cases  led  to  further  legislation  in  regard  to  the 
method  of  procedure  in  closing  up  insolvent  banks.  The 
law  of  1841,  chapter  302,  provided  that  the  Governor,  upon 
information  that  any  bank  had  refused  to  pay  in  specie  on 
demand  or  had  issued  small  notes  in  violation  of  law,  should 
direct  the  Attorney-General  to  issue  a  scire  facias  against 
such  bank.  In  this  case  the  county  court  or  any  judge  of  it 
might  by  injunction  restrain  the  bank  from  improperly  dis- 
posing of  its  funds,  and  might  appoint  a  receiver  if  it  thought 
best.  The  court  upon  proper  evidence  could  adjudge  the 
charter  forfeited  and  appoint  three  trustees  to  settle  up  the 
business.  Thereupon  the  property  of  the  bank  vested  fully 
in  the  trustees,  and  the  court  might  require  the  bank  to  exe- 
cute a  deed  of  assignment  to  the  trustees. 

The  time  consumed  in  the  liquidation  of  insolvent  banks 
was  frequently  very  long,  extending  from  five  to  fifteen  years 

1  Report  of  the  Select  Committee  in  relation  to  the  Susquehanna 
Bank,  House  of  Delegates,  Apr.  3,  1839. 


106  History  of  State  Banking  in  Maryland. 

in  some  cases.  To  prevent  the  trouble  of  keeping  bank 
notes  this  long  time,  while  awaiting  dividends  of  the  assets, 
the  Legislature  enacted  that  record  might  be  made  of  such 
notes  in  any  court  of  the  State  and  the  notes  themselves 
might  be  destroyed  by  the  sheriff.1 

In  1842  a  scire  facias  was  issued  against  the  Farmers'  and 
Millers'  Bank  of  Hagerstown,  to  show  why  it  had  not  for- 
feited its  charter.  It  had  secured  its  charter  in  1835,  with  an 
authorized  capital  of  $200,000,  of  which  $100,000  was  sub- 
scribed. $75,000  only,  the  amount  of  the  specie  require- 
ment, was  paid  in.  A  committee  appointed  by  the  treasurer 
to  make  examination  reported  the  $75,000  in  specie  to  be  in 
the  possession  of  the  bank.  They  had,  however,  allowed  the 
bank  to  consider  $60,000  in  certificates  of  deposit  as  specie. 
These  certificates  of  deposit  were  from  the  Commercial  Bank 
of  Millington,  which  immediately  failed.  Its  president  was 
the  president  of  the  new  bank,  and,  in  like  manner,  when  the 
Hagerstown  Bank  was  on  the  point  of  failure,  he  attempted 
to  start  another  in  Virginia.  Under  this  scheme  the  Farm- 
ers' and  Millers'  Bank  got  into  operation  with  but  $15,000  in 
specie.  Its  notes  were  sent  to  friends  at  a  distance  for  cir- 
culation. Its  cashier  was  of  great  resource,  and  he  man- 
aged to  keep  the  concern  afloat.  At  one  time  there  were 
only  four  dollars  in  bankable  funds  in  the  institution,  and 
the  only  specie  was  some  boxes  of  pennies.  On  January  18, 
1843,  the  committee  appointed  to  examine  it  reported  its 
condition  as  follows  :2 

Liabilities — Circulation $8,839.00 

Deposits 5,464.54 

$14,303.54 

Assets — Notes  of  specie  banks $285.00 

Specie 1,725.50 

$2,010.50 
Deficit, 12,293.04 

1  Md.  Laws,  1840,  ch.  85. 

2  Report  of  Special  Committee  to  Legislature,  1843. 


Banking  in  Maryland,  1810-1864,  107 

The  other  assets  were  estimated  to  be  worthless,  and  no 
mention  was  made  of  the  capital  stock,  which  would  increase 
the  deficit  by  $15,000.  The  bank  was  allowed  to  continue 
on  condition  that  $30,000  be  paid  in  specie,  and  a  specie  re- 
serve be  held  equal  to  one-third  of  its  notes  issued;  besides 
this,  it  had  to  meet  the  other  provisions  of  its  charter.1 

Considerable  reduction  was  made  in  the  capital  of  other 
banks,  both  on  account  of  losses  and  also  because,  in  the  de- 
pression succeeding  the  panics  of  1837  and  1839,  they  were 
unable  to  employ  profitably  their  entire  capitals.  The  Ches- 
apeake Bank  reduced  its  capital  from  $500,000  to  $350,000; 
the  Farmers'  and  Planters'  from  $1,000,000  to  $600,625 ;  the 
Farmers'  and  Merchants'  from  $500,000  to  $400,000;  the 
Western  from  $604,300  to  $308,280;  the  Frederick  County 
from  $500,000  to  $150,000;  the  Washington  County  from 
$250,000  to  $150,000.  The  Merchants'  was  authorized  to 
invest  $500,000  in  its  own  stock,  since  it  could  not  employ  it 
all  in  ordinary  banking  operations.2  The  voluntary  reduc- 
tion, together  with  that  from  failures,  amounted  in  all  to 
$2,325,395;  of  this  amount,  at  least  $715,000  was  due  to  loss. 

17.  Other  Details. 

In  the  various  great  works  projected  at  this  time,  the 
Chesapeake  and  Ohio,  the  Tidewater  and  the  Annapolis 
Canals,  the  Baltimore  and  Ohio,  the  Baltimore  and  Wash- 
ington, the  Susquehanna,  the  Eastern  Shore  and  the  Annap- 
olis and  Elkridge  Railroads,  the  State  subscribed  over  $16,- 
300,000.  These  obligations  placed  the  State  under  a  con- 
stantly-increasing debt,  even  the  interest  upon  which  the 
State  revenue  was  inadequate  to  pay,  after  providing  for  the 
current  expenses.  The  panic  had  rendered  the  negotiation 
in  Europe  of  loans  upon  American  securities  impossible 
upon  favorable  terms.  Immediately  after  the  suspension  of 
1837,  Maryland  made  a  desperate  effort  to  pay  her  creditors 
in  gold  and  silver,  but  the  extent  of  its  obligations  compelled 
the  discontinuation  of  this  policy.  In  1842  it  was  unable  to 

1  Md.  Laws,  1844,  ch.  276.  *  Ibid,  1843,  ch.  85. 


108  History  of  State  Banking  in  Maryland. 

pay  the  interest  due.  The  system  of  general  taxation  which 
had  been  introduced  was  not  providing  sufficient  revenue, 
so  in  1843  it  was  deemed  necessary  to  dispose  of  the  State's 
interest  in  the  public  works,  amounting  to  $11,700,000,  but 
no  acceptable  offer  was  made.  In  January,  1846,  effort  was 
made  to  sell  the  bank  stock  belonging  to  the  State  to  the 
amount  of  $510,966.  The  proposition  passed  the  House  by 
a  large  majority,  but  failed  by  a  single  vote  in  the  Senate. 
Through  loans  from  the  banks  and  private  individuals,  the 
State  was  enabled  to  avoid  open  bankruptcy  until  the  system 
of  taxation  provided  an  adequate  revenue.  Resumption  of 
interest  payment  was  made  January  I,  1848. 

For  some  years  the  State  had  been  commuting  to  money 
the  right  to  subscribe  to  the  stock  of  the  several  banks,  and 
to  appoint  directors  in  them.  The  proceeds  were  applied  to 
current  expenses.  This  first  occurred  in  1828,  when  the 
Commercial  and  Farmers'  Bank  of  Baltimore  agreed  to  pay 
$9533^  on  condition  that  the  State  give  up  the  right  to  sub- 
scribe 286  reserved  shares,  and  also  the  right  to  appoint  di- 
rectors. It  could  still,  however,  vote  on  the  shares  held  by 
it.1  The  right  to  subscribe  1000  shares  in  the  Union2  Bank, 
5000  shares  in  the  Merchants'3  and  500  shares  in  the  Hamil- 
ton4 were  in  like  manner  offered  by  the  State  to  the  banks 
at  prices  varying  from  $6  to  $10  per  share.  The  right  to 
appoint  directors  in  the  Farmers'  and  Merchants'  Bank  was 
offered  to  the  bank  for  $5000,  the  right  to  vote  on  the  shares 
being  retained.5 

In  1841  the  fight  against  bill  brokers  and  note  shavers  was 
renewed.     The  first  step  was  to  raise  the  cost  of  their  license 
to  $3000  yearly.     The  penalty  for  exchanging  and  purchas- 
ing bills  without  a  license  was  fixed  at  $500  for  each  offence. 
The  banks  were  released  from  all  obligation  to  redeem  their 


1  Md.  Laws,  1827,  ch.  215. 

2  Ibid.,  1827,  ch.  216.     Ibid.,  1827,  ch.  185.     Ibid.,  1833,  Resolution. 
5  Ibid.,  1836,  ch.  154.  *  Ibid.,  1836,  ch.  198. 

5  Ibid.,  1833,  ch.  115.  «  Ibid.,  1841,  ch.  282. 


Banking  in  Maryland,  1810-1864.  109 

notes  in  specie  for  any  foreign  or  domestic  broker.1  The 
next  year  these  conditions  were  mitigated  to  considerable 
extent  by  a  reduction  of  the  cost  of  license  to  $5O.2  This 
was  brought  about  by  the  inconvenience  arising  from  the 
mass  of  depreciated  and  uncurrent  paper  money,  chiefly  of 
banks  of  other  States,  which  by  means  of  the  brokers  could 
be  exchanged  for  reliable  currency. 

In  1837  there  was  further  legislation  to  prevent  the  fraudu- 
lent manipulation  of  stock  in  the  election  of  officers.  It  pro- 
vided that  stockholders  intending  to  canvass  the  votes  must 
notify  beforehand  an  officer  of  the  bank;  this  officer,  in  turn, 
had  to  notify  all  the  stockholders  residing  in  the  State.  Upon 
voting,  each  stockholder  had  to  swear  that  the  stock  which 
he  was  voting  was  his  bona  fide  property,  or  was  held  by 
him  in  some  fiduciary  relation,  and  was  not  transferred  to 
him  to  increase  the  number  of  votes.  Persons  voting  by 
proxy  had  to  make  this  oath  before  some  qualified  officer  of 
the  State.  Directors  had  to  make  oath  that  they  had  not 
acquired  shares  to  qualify  themselves  for  office. 

General  permission  was  extended  to  all  the  banks  in  1844 
to  make  loans  upon  promissory  notes  or  obligations  under 
seal,  secured  by  mortgage,  for  any  period  up  to  five  years  at 
6  per  cent.3 

In  1833  an  act  was  passed  subjecting  stocks  and  funded 
property  to  attachment  and  execution  for  debt.  The  pro- 
ceedings were  similar  to  those  regarding  real  estate. 

18.  Increase  of  Banking  Capital,  1843-62. 

By  the  middle  of  the  century  the  financial  troubles  of 
Maryland,  brought  on  by  its  participation  in  the  construc- 
tion of  internal  improvements,  had  been  adjusted,  and  the 
fruits  of  these  public  works  were  being  realized  in  the  rapid 
development  of  its  resources.  The  canals  and  railroads  were 
making  Baltimore  the  commercial  center  and  shipping  point 
for  the  coal,  lumber  and  agricultural  products  of  Western 
Pennsylvania  and  the  Ohio  region.  The  Southern  States, 

1  Md.  Laws,  1841,  ch.  302,  sec.  8.  *  Ibid.,  1842,  ch.  257. 

3  Ibid.,  1843,  ch-  269. 


110  History  of  State  Banking  in  Maryland. 

which  were  almost  entirely  devoted  to  cotton  and  tobacco 
culture,  drew  from  Maryland  a  large  part  of  their  bread- 
stuffs.  From  1848  to  1858  the  South  American  trade  of 
Baltimore  was  at  its  zenith. 

After  the  industrial  revival  which  followed  the  disturbance 
of  1837-42  had  begun,  the  inadequacy  of  Baltimore  banking 
capital  became  a  matter  of  common  concern  among  mer- 
chants, and  various  means  were  adopted  within  a  few  years 
to  stimulate  its  increase.  Old  banks  were  allowed  to  enlarge 
their  capitals ;  new  ones  were  incorporated,  and  savings  insti- 
tutions were  changed  to  regular  banks  of  discount  and  issue. 
Some  savings  banks  were  allowed  the  power  of  issue.  Effort 
was  made  to  secure  the  passage  of  a  free  banking  law. 

The  formation  of  new  banks  proceeded  gradually  from 
1843  to  1862;  from  1853  to  1858  the  rate  of  increase  was  a 
little  greater  than  before.  The  total  number  of  new  banks 
incorporated,  exclusive  of  those  which  had  been  operating 
before  as  savings  banks,  was  seventeen,  and  the  amount  of 
capital  allowed  them  by  their  charters  was  $3,000,000.  One 
of  these  banks  failed  to  go  into  operation,  and  the  charters 
of  two  others  were  repealed  by  the  Legislature,  deducting 
in  all  $350,000  from  the  total  just  mentioned.  Two  of  these 
banks,  representing  $800,000  nominal  capital,  were  located 
in  Baltimore. 

Seven  savings  institutions  were  regularly  incorporated  as 
banks  and  allowed  all  the  privileges  usually  given  to  banks 
under  the  laws  of  the  State.  The  conversion  of  savings 
banks  to  regular  banks  had  occurred  in  two  cases  previously 
to  this  time.  The  Western  Bank  of  Baltimore  had  been 
formed  in  1835  from  the  Mechanics'  Saving  Fund  Society, 
and  at  the  same  time  the  Fell's  Point  Savings  Bank  was 
authorized  to  become  the  Eastern  Bank  of  Baltimore;  the 
latter,  however,  did  not  change.  The  total  authorized  cap- 
ital of  these  seven  banks  was  $1,800,000,  of  which  $1,400,000 
belonged  to  the  four  located  in  Baltimore.  The  chief  ad- 
vantages gained  by  these  banks  were  the  power  of  issue  and 
less  restriction  in  their  investments.  The  savings  banks 


Banking  in  Maryland,  1810-1864.  Ill 

were  generally  limited  to  investing  in  bonds  and  securities; 
some  were  allowed  to  discount  up  to  two-thirds  the  amount 
of  their  deposits.  In  making  the  change  they  became  sub- 
ject to  the  laws  controlling  banks  generally.  Two  of  them 
were  allowed  to  continue  the  practice  of  receiving  weekly 
deposits  and  paying  interest  on  them  up  to  6  per  cent.1  The 
practice  of  paying  interest  on  deposits  left  for  a  specified  time 
had  already  become  general  among  the  banks. 

It  is  impossible  to  conjecture  the  extent  of  the  business 
done  in  Maryland  by  savings  banks,  except  so  far  as  their 
number  gives  an  indication.  Though  two  or  three  had  been 
incorporated  before  1830,  about  that  time  they  first  became 
of  importance  in  Maryland.  The  increase  of  their  number 
corresponds  in  time  to  the  increase  of  the  regular  banks. 
Up  to  1842  nineteen  had  been  established  in  the  counties 
and  eleven  in  Baltimore.  In  most  cases  they  simply  in- 
vested their  deposits  and  had  no  capital  stock.  Between 
1842  and  1861  twenty-nine  were  chartered,  eight  of  which 
were  in  Baltimore.  Of  the  total  number  a  capital  limit  was. 
fixed  for  sixteen,  aggregating  in  all  $2,800,000.  They  were 
required  to  send  no  reports  to  the  State  treasurer,  and  the 
magnitude  of  their  operations  is  unknown.  A  very  small 
number  of  failures  occurred,  only  two  or  three.2 

One  peculiar  feature  of  Maryland  savings  banks  which 
appears  to  have  developed  in  no  other  State,  was  the  right 
given  to  some  of  them  to  issue  notes  to  circulate  as  money. 
This  privilege  was  first  conferred  by  the  Legislature  in  1844, 
and  by  1860  nine  savings  banks  had  acquired  this  power. 
In  nearly  every  case  it  was  the  subject  of  a  special  act  of  the 
Legislature,  and  was  not  included  in  the  charter.  The  limit 
for  issues  was  usually,  as  for  other  banks,  the  amount  of 
the  capital  paid  in.  For  the  Howard  Street  Savings  Bank  it 
was  fixed  at  one-fourth  of  the  deposits,  and  one-fourth  of 
the  deposits  was  not  subject  to  withdrawal,  but  formed  a 

1  Md.  Laws,  1856,  ch.  109.     Ibid.,  1856,  ch.  340. 

2  That  of  the  Maryland  Savings  Institution  in  1834  was  the  most 
important.     Niles,   1834,  May  10  and  June  7.     Scharf,   History  of 
Maryland,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  176. 


112 


History  of  State  Banking  in  Maryland. 


fund  for  note  redemption.1  The  Fredericktown  Savings  In- 
stitution was  allowed  to  issue  up  to  $30,000,  provided  it  kept 
as  a  redemption  fund  $15,000  in  certificates  of  Maryland, 
Baltimore,  United  States  or  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal 
stocks.2  Others  were  required  to  keep  a  redemption  fund 
of  State  stocks  or  specie  equal  to  one-half  the  issues.  In 
each  case  the  school  fund  tax  was  required,  twenty  cents  on 
the  hundred  dollars  of  capital  paid  in  or  of  notes  issued,3  as 
the  case  might  be.  In  one  or  two  cases  a  bonus  also  was  re- 
quired, as  likewise  was  an  annual  report  to  the  treasurer.* 

TABLE  OF  MARYLAND  BANKS  CHARTERED  1843-62. 


Havre-de-Grace 

Valley,* 

Cecil, 

Farmers'  and  Mechan- 
ics' of  Kent  Co. , 

Farmers'  and  Mechan- 
ics' of  Carroll  Co., 

Howard  Co.  ,f 

Easton, 

Central, 

Commerce, 

Farmers'  and  Mer- 
chants' , 

Queen  Anne's  Co., 

Farmers'  and  Mer- 
chants' of  Cecil  Co., 

American, 

Patapsco.f 

Alleghany  Co., 

Clinton, 

Delaware  City, 

*  Did  not  open. 


LOCATION. 


Havre-de-Grace 
Hagerstown, 
Port  Deposit, 

Chestertown, 


1843 
1847 
1849 


CAPITAL. 
$2OO,OOO 
IOO,OOO 
IOO,OOO 


1849  150,000 


Carroll  Co., 

1849 

300,000 

Ellicott's  Mills, 

1853 

150,000 

Easton, 

1853 

150,000 

Frederick, 

1853 

150,000 

Baltimore, 

1854 

300,000 

Greensborough  , 

1856 

100,000 

Centreville, 

1856 

100,000 

Elkton,  1862 

Baltimore,  1856 

Ellicott's  Mills,  1856 

Cumberland,  1858 

Westernport,  1858 

Delaware  City,  1862 

J 

t  Charter  repealed. 


100,000 
500,000 
100,000 
250,000 
100,000 
100,000 

52,950,000 


1  Md.  Laws,  1849,  ch.  456. 
3  Ibid.,  1849,  cn-  325- 


2  Ibid.,  1849,  ch.  290. 
*  Ibid.,  1849,  ch-  290. 


Banking  in  Maryland,  1810-1864. 


113 


TABLE  OF  BANKS  FORMED  FROM  SAVINGS  BANKS. 


LOCATION. 


Howard Baltimore. 

Exchange Baltimore. 

People's Baltimore. 

Union .  Hagerstown. 

Frostburg Frostburg. 

City Cumberland. 

Fell's  Point  .  .  Baltimore. 


DATE. 

CAPITAL. 

1854 

$3OO,OOO 

1856 

5OO,OOO 

I856 

25O,OOO 

1856 

150,000 

1856 

100,000 

1858 

I50,OOO 

1862 

350,000 

$1,800,000 


TABLE  OF  SAVINGS  BANKS  HAVING  POWER  TO  ISSUE. 


NAME. 

Fell's  Point 

Hagerstown 

Fredericktown 

Cumberland 

Howard  Street 

Somerset  and  Worcester 

Franklin 

Manchester 

Old  Town  . 


LOCATION. 

Baltimore. 

Hagerstown. 

Fredericktown. 

Cumberland. 

Baltimore. 

Snowhill. 

Frederick. 

Baltimore. 


1844 
1846 
1849 
1849 
1849 
1858 
1860 
1860 
1860 


$80,000 
100,000 


100,000 
150,000 


To  encourage  the  growth  of  banking  capital  the  Assem- 
bly made  a  general  law,  March  8,  1854,  allowing  the  banks 
of  Baltimore  to  increase  their  capitals  at  times  suiting  their 
convenience,  simply  upon  reporting  the  increase  to  the  State 
Treasurer  and  paying  the  school  tax  fund.  Not  less  than 
$100,000  might  be  added  at  any  one  time,  and  the  maximum 
amounts  were  as  follows : 

Banks  of  $1,000,000  capital  and  over  might  enlarge  to 
$2,000,000;  banks  of  $900,000  to  $1,000,000  might  enlarge 
to  $1,500,000;  banks  of  less  than  $900,000  might  enlarge 
to  $1,000,000. 

Between  the  time  of  resumption  in  1842  and  the  passage 
of  the  above  act  the  old  banks  had  added  $289,000  to  their 

8 


114  History  of  State  Banking  in  Maryland. 

capital.  Within  five  years  after  the  act  was  passed  $1,458,- 
ooo  had  been  added;  reductions,  however,  offset  this  in- 
crease to  the  amount  of  $397,000.  The  total  increase  of 
active  banking  capital  from  all  sources  was  $2,823,000,  from 
$9,746,000  in  twenty  banks  in  1843  to  $12,569,000  operated 
by  thirty-one  banks  in  1858.  From  1858  to  1862  the  re- 
duction was  greater  than  the  increase  from  new  banks. 

19.  Expansion,  1845-57. 

After  the  period  of  liquidation  which  followed  the  panic 
of  1839,  the  banks  began  again  to  extend  their  credit,  and 
in  1847  and  1848  this  movement  became  accelerated  under 
the  stimulus  of  the  general  industrial  prosperity.  The  en- 
largement of  discounts  proceeded  regularly  until  1854,  when 
a  temporary  reaction  occurred,  on  account  largely  of  the  dis- 
turbed condition  of  financial  relations  with  Europe.  After 
this  check  the  process  of  expansion  continued  until  1857. 
This  increase  of  bank  notes,  however,  to  a  large  extent  took 
the  place  of  the  silver  coins,  which  by  1850  had  almost  en- 
tirely disappeared  from  circulation.  From  1850  to  1854  the 
quantity  of  money  in  circulation  was  too  small  to  perform 
conveniently  its  uses,  and  there  was  a  constant  demand  for 
more  money.1  The  State  attempted  to  relieve  the  situation 
by  the  charter  of  new  banking  companies,  by  allowing  all 
banks  to  double  their  issues,  i.  e.,  to  issue  up  to  twice  the 
amount  of  their  capital  paid  in,  and  finally,  by  the  permission 
granted  to  certain  savings  banks  to  issue. 

The  State  had  always  insisted  strenuously  that  the  money 
of  denominations  under  five  dollars  should  be  coin,  and  only 
under  exceptional  circumstances  had  it  departed  from  this 
rule.  In  1851  silver  dollars  and  half-dollars  had  become  so 
scarce  that  some  of  the  banks  had  again  adopted  the  expe- 
dient of  issuing  notes  of  denominations  under  five  dollars, 
and  the  small  notes  of  banks  of  other  States  also  circulated 
in  Maryland  in  considerable  numbers.  The  Legislature  in 
May,  1852,  forbade  both  their  issue  by  Maryland  banks  after 

1  Baltimore  American,  Mar.  19,  1852.     Bankers'  Magazine,  Feb., 
1853- 


Banking  in  Maryland,  1810-1864. 

March,  1853,  and  also  the  receipt  or  payment  of  such  notes 
of  banks  located  outside  the  State  under  penalty  of  five  dol- 
lars for  each  offence.1  The  inconvenience  of  the  lack  of 
small  currency  was  felt  on  all  sides,  and  quite  an  agitation 
was  aroused  to  procure  the  repeal  of  the  law.  The  Balti- 
more City  Council  by  almost  unanimous  vote  requested  this 
action,  but  without  avail.2  After  1854  the  quantity  of  specie 
in  circulation  increased  in  a  marked  manner,  owing  to  the 
influence  of  the  newly-found  gold  mines. 

Throughout  the  period  1843-57  the  quantity  of  specie  in 
the  hands  of  Maryland  banks  was  always  large  in  proportion 
to  circulation.  During  these  years  there  was  always  an 
amount  of  specie  in  the  possession  of  the  banks  equal  to 
more  than  half  the  circulation,  and  the  ratio  of  specie  to  cir- 
culation and  deposit  combined  was  never  less  than  I  to 
4.  The  following  items  from  the  reports  of  the  banks  will 
show  these  points : 

YEAR.  CIRCULATION.  DEPOSITS.  SPECIE. 

1843  $1,743,768  $2,977,174  $2,537,822 

1847  2,400,267  3,863,891  2,005,078 

1851  3,532,^70  5,966,834  2,738,834 

1854  4,9l8,38l  8,621,052  3,405,090 

1857  5^55, 096  9,611,324  3,522,561 

The  condition  of  all  the  banks  was  sound,  and  all  re- 
deemed their  notes  in  specie;  no  Maryland  bank  paper  was 
at  a  discount  within  the  State.  In  New  York  the  notes  of 
Baltimore  banks  were  at  a  slight  discount,  about  equal  to 
the  cost  of  having  them  exchanged.  The  notes  of  the  less 
well-known  banks  of  the  State  were  quoted  in  New  York 
at  a  small  discount  ranging  from  one-half  to  four  per  cent. 

The  greatest  abuses  of  the  period  were,  first,  the  issues  of 
unknown  and  worthless  banks,  chiefly  Western  and  South- 


1  Md.  Laws,  1852,  ch.  235. 

*  Baltimore  American,  Mar.  19,  1852.     Baltimore  Patriot,  Jan.  24, 
1853.     Bankers'  Magazine,  Feb.,  1853. 


116  History  of  State  Banking  in  Maryland. 

ern,  which  made  their  way  into  all  quarters  of  the  country, 
furnishing  a  mass  of  greatly  depreciated  notes  upon  the  ex- 
change of  which  the  note  brokers  thrived;  secondly,  the  ap- 
palling amount  of  counterfeiting.  The  various  registers  and 
reporters  of  counterfeit  notes,  published  monthly  or  quar- 
terly, gave  information  to  the  public  of  the  many  counterfeits 
in  circulation. 

20.  General  Banking  Law. 

The  call  for  an  increased  banking  capital  led  in  the  early 
fifties  to  an  agitation  for  free  banking  under  a  general  law; 
the  time  seemed  especially  auspicious,  too,  for  this  move- 
ment, since  the  old  charters  had  expired  in  the  course  of  the 
years  1854-60.  The  matter  was  brought  up  in  the  Senate  in 
1852,  and  a  committee  was  appointed  to  consider  it.  The 
committee  viewed  the  proposition  favorably,  and  offered  a 
bill  which  resembled  in  most  respects  the  New  York  law  of 
I838.1  The  committee  recited  that  in  its  estimation  freer 
access  to  banking  privileges  would  be  an  advantage,  and 
that  banking  operations  could  be  conducted  as  well  under  a 
general  law  as  under  separate  charters,  and  that,  except  when 
necessary,  the  Constitution  of  the  State  discountenances  the 
granting  of  special  corporate  powers.2  It  was  argued  that 
the  government  owed  to  the  people  security  from  loss  on 
the  currency,  the  issue  of  which  was  a  function  of  sovereignty 
which  had  been  bestowed  upon  the  banks,  and  the  commit- 
tee could  see  no  means  of  securing  protection  of  notes  other- 
wise than  by  requiring  as  security  from  all  institutions  hav- 
ing the  power  of  issue,  the  pledge  of  property  to  at  least  an 
amount  equal  to  their  circulation.  The  policy  of  the  banks 
of  Venice,  Barcelona,  Genoa  and  England  had  been  to  in- 
vest their  capital  in  permanent  securities,  and  to  use  the 
credit  for  purposes  of  discounting.  Several  of  the  United 
States  had  adopted  the  plan,  and  in  practice  it  had  worked 
well. 

1  Report  of  Select  Committee  ...   on  a  General  Banking  Law, 
Mar.  30,  1852.  *  Ibid.,  p.  i. 


Banking  in  Maryland,  1810-1864.  117 

The  innovations  proposed  in  the  bill  were  as  follows : 

1.  Organization.    Any  number  of  persons  might  associate 
to  establish  offices  of  discount,  deposit  and  issue.     They 
must  specify  the  name  and  location  of  the  institution,  its 
capital  and  the  amount  of  each  share,  the  name,  residence 
and  number  of  shares  of  each  stockholder,  and  the  date  of 
commencement  and  expiration  of  the  institution. 

2.  The  president  was  required  to  make  a  list  of  stock- 
holders, and  the  number  of  shares  held  by  each,  and  to  file 
it  in  the  office  of  the  clerk  of  the  Circuit  Court. 

3.  Upon  application  of  a  thousand  stockholders,  any  court 
or  judge  possessing  equity  jurisdiction  might  order  an  ex- 
amination by  the  auditor  of  the  court  or  by  a  special  commis- 
sioner, to  ascertain  the  safety  of  the  public  interests,  and  the 
results  of  the  investigation  were  to  be  published. 

4.  Upon  deposit  of  United  States  or  Maryland  6  per  cent, 
bonds  with  a  State  officer,  the  officer  was  directed  to  sign 
and  register  notes  for  circulation,  furnished  by  the  bank,  to 
an  amount  equal  to  the  bonds  deposited.     Such  notes  were 
to  be  stamped  "Secured  by  the  Pledge  of  Public  Stocks." 
The  banks  by  powers  of  attorney  were  to  continue  to  receive 
the  interest  on  the  bonds,  unless  the  bank  failed  to  redeem 
its  notes  or  the  State  officer  thought  the  security  was  becom- 
ing insufficient.     After  protest  of  a  bank's  notes,  and  after 
an  order  had  been  issued  upon  the  bank  for  their  payment 
by  the  specified  State  officer,  the  officer  was  directed  to  re- 
deem the  notes  and  to  auction  the  bonds  for  this  purpose. 

5.  No  officers  were  allowed  to  borrow. 

6.  Banks  might  increase  their  capital  at  will. 

7.  Statements  were  to  be  rendered  to  the  State  whenever 
required;  upon  failure  to  give  them,  the  business  operations 
of  the  bank  were  to  cease  and  a  receiver  was  to  be  appointed 
by  any  court  or  judge  having  an  equity  jurisdiction. 

These  were  the  leading  provisions  which  it  was  proposed 
to  introduce  into  Maryland  banking  law  at  this  time.  Their 
strong  feature  was  the  security  which  they  offered  for  bank 
notes,  the  beneficial  operation  of  which  system  in  several 


118  History  of  State  Banking  in  Maryland. 

States  was  attracting  attention  at  this  time.1  However,  the 
question  of  special  security  for  bank  notes  was  not  then  a 
sufficiently  vivid  one  to  be  effective  in  the  passage  of  the 
bill.  Little  or  no  loss  had  occurred  in  Maryland  from  this 
source  for  twenty  years.  On  the  other  hand,  the  deposit  of 
bonds  equal  to  the  amount  of  notes  issued  tended  to  restrict 
elasticity  of  the  currency;  the  banks  would  generally  deposit 
in  bonds  the  amount  of  their  average  issues,  to  avoid  the  in- 
vestment of  so  much  of  their  funds  in  this  manner  which 
they  might  employ  more  profitably  in  discounting.  Any 
response  to  the  demands  of  industry  would  thus  be  slow  and 
unnatural.  This  was  the  direct  opposite  of  the  object 
desired. 

Leaving  out  of  consideration  the  security  of  note  issues,  in 
some  other  respects  the  bill  was  weak.  The  careful  provisions 
in  regard  to  the  payment  of  capital  which  had  been  found 
necessary  in  practice,  were  wanting,  and  any  details  or  ad- 
justment to  suit  special  cases  was  impossible  in  a  general 
law. 

After  somewhat  considerable  discussion  in  the  Senate  the 
bill  was  tabled.2  At  the  following  session  of  the  General 
Assembly  the  question  was  revived  and  referred  to  the  Com- 
mittee on  the  Currency,  but  no  action  was  taken.8 

A  general  banking  law  was,  however,  adopted  in  1853,  but 
it  was  simply  a  collection  of  the  laws  of  the  State  governing 
banks,  with  a  few  modifications,  reenacted  in  a  single  law, 
and  all  the  banks  were  made  subject  to  it,  both  those  already 
existing  and  those  subsequently  chartered.  The  occasion  of 
the  passing  of  the  law  was  the  expiration  of  the  charters  of 
twenty  banks  of  the  State.  These  were  all  continued  to 
1880,  subject  to  the  restrictions  of  the  law.  The  only  new 
regulations  were  the  following:4 

i.  Regulating  voting. 

For  i-io  shares,  the  holder  was  entitled  to  I  vote  each. 

1  Cf.    Report  of  Select  Committee  .   .   .   .  on  a  General  Banking 
Law,  March  30,  1852.  2  Md.  Senate  Journal,  Apr.  13,  1852 

*  Ibid.,  1853,  PP-  29°  and  451.    *  Md.  Laws,  1853,  ch.  441. 


Banking  in  Maryland,  1810-1864.  H9 

For  10-100  shares,  the  holder  was  entitled  to  I  vote  for 
every  two. 

For  100  and  over,  the  holder  was  entitled  to  i  vote  for 
every  five. 

2.  The  president  and  majority  of  the  directors  were  to 
constitute  a  board  for  ordinary  business  and  discounting. 

3.  Discounts  and  loans  for  directors  were  absolutely  pro- 
hibited, under  pain  of  fine  or  imprisonment  for  violation. 

4.  Interest  upon  deposits  was  limited  to  3  per  cent,  per 
annum. 

5.  The  State  Treasurer  was  to  have  a  semi-annual  state- 
ment of  the  condition  of  each  bank,  which  was  to  be  pub- 
lished in  the  county  in  which  the  bank  was  located. 

6.  The  school  fund  tax  was  continued. 

The  free  banking  principle  was  entirely  omitted;  the 
Legislature  continued  to  hold  within  its  hands  the  power  to 
extend  banking  privileges.  No  special  provision  was  made 
for  the  security  of  bank  notes.  The  regulations  of  the  law 
were  much  more  minute  than  those  of  the  free  banking  bill 
proposed  in  1852. 

The  Act  of  1854,  chapter  152,  should  be  taken  in  connec- 
tion with  the  above  law.  By  the  general  law  issues,  as  pre- 
viously, were  restricted  to  the  amount  of  the  capital  paid  in; 
by  the  law  of  1854  banks  having  a  paid-in  capital  of  less  than 
$250,000  were  allowed  to  issue  up  to  double  that  amount. 
The  explanation  of  this  step  lies  in  the  fact  that  the  amount 
of  currency  was  found  to  be  inconveniently  small;1  the  ex- 
tension of  bank  issues  was  the  most  available  remedy  at  hand. 

21.   Crisis  and  Suspension  of 1857, 

The  continual  expansion  along  all  lines  throughout  the 
entire  country  during  the  years  1842-57  culminated  in  dis- 
aster in  1857.  The  speculative  condition  of  industry  stimu- 
lated the  issues  of  the  banks  until  in  1857  a  climax  was 
reached.  The  currency,  becoming  increasingly  inflated 
from  1853  to  1857,  was  highly  conducive  to  over-trading, 
over-importation,  stock  speculation,  etc.  The  reaction  was 

JSeep.  114,  et  seq. 


120  History  of  State  Banking  in  Maryland. 

first  felt  in  the  Western  States  in  the  summer  of  1857,  and 
many  Eastern  firms,  creditors  of  Western  concerns,  soon 
failed.  Bills  on  Eastern  points  were  at  10  to  15  per  cent, 
premium.  New  York  was  the  first  Eastern  city  affected  by 
this  panicky  state  of  affairs,  but  until  the  middle  of  October 
its  banks  were  able  to  resist  suspension.  A  run  began  on 
the  deposits  of  Eastern  banks  in  September,  and  on  Septem- 
ber 25  the  banks  of  Philadelphia  suspended;  on  the  26th 
those  of  Baltimore  did  likewise,  and  the  banks  of  Cumber- 
land, Frederick  and  other  towns  followed  soon.1  The  de- 
posits of  Baltimore  banks  January  4,  1858,  were  $1,683,861 
lower  than  on  the  same  day  of  the  previous  year.  This 
heavy  drain  upon  the  specie  reserve  reduced  its  amount 
$829,359. 

The  condition  of  the  banks  was  sound,  but  suspension 
was  a  matter  of  self-preservation  when  the  creditor  banks  of 
Philadelphia  had  suspended  and  those  of  the  South  were  on 
the  point  of  doing  so.  Every  facility  in  the  line  of  discounts 
within  their  power  was  rendered  by  the  banks  to  relieve  the 
situation.  By  January  i,  1858,  the  diminution  of  discounts 
was  $902,256,  less  by  almost  half  than  the  withdrawal  of  de- 
posits. The  amount  of  circulation  outstanding  decreased 
$337,000.  Even  after  this  strain  the  condition  of  the  Balti- 
more banks  was  comparatively  strong. 

ITEMS  OF  BALTIMORE  BANK  STATEMENTS,  1851-1858.* 

DATE.  CAPITAL.  DISCOUNTS.       SPECIE.     CIRCULATION.      DEP'T. 

Jan.  6,  1851        $6,101       $11,783     $2,330     $2,281     $4,528 


5,  1852 

7,141 

11,428 

1,967 

2,180 

3,912 

3,  1853 

7,291 

14,291 

2,992 

3,328 

6,021 

2,  1854 

7,592 

14,969 

2,848 

2,956 

6,962 

i.  1855 

8,576 

H,279 

2,485 

2,638 

5,858 

7,  1856 

9,065 

i6,397 

2,832 

3,388 

6,485 

5-  1857  9,777  18,704  2,998  3,395  7,765 
"  4,  1858  10,160  17,802  2,169  3,058  6,082 
*  Bankers'  Magazine,  Vol.  VII, p.  655.  (Three figures  omitted.) 

1  Bankers'  Magazine,  Vol.  VII,  p.  426. 


Banking  in  Maryland,  1810-1864.  121 

The  money  market  in  Baltimore  grew  tighter  toward  the 
end  of  1857,  and  interest  was  charged  at  I  to  i£  per  cent, 
per  month.  Exchange  on  New  York  was  4^  to  5  per  cent, 
premium.  An  effort  was  made  in  New  York  to  resume  De- 
cember 13,  and  discounts  were  contracted  and  specie  pro- 
cured for  this  purpose.1  The  time  seemed  rather  unfavor- 
able, since  the  exportation  of  specie  at  the  rate  of  $2,000,000 
or  $3,000,000  a  week  had  succeeded  the  importation  of  a  few 
weeks  previous.  Baltimore  bank  notes  were  at  par  in  Mary- 
land, and  those  of  country  banks  were  at  very  slight  dis- 
count. The  public  seems  to  have  exerted  very  slight  pres- 
sure upon  the  banks  to  resume.  The  Baltimore  Patriot, 
speaking  of  resumption,  said:  "The  banks,  we  feel  confi- 
dent, are  amply  prepared  to  meet  any  emergency,  but  as  a 
mutual  dependence  and  reciprocal  interest  exist  between 
them  and  the  community,  neither  can  entertain  any  desire  to 
hamper  or  oppress  the  other.  Whatever  advantage  can 
arise  from  a  state  of  suspension,  let  it  be  enjoyed,  allowing 
ample  time  for  all  to  participate,  as  far  as  prudence  may 
dictate.  Business  must  be  resumed  and  take  an  active  turn 
before  wonted  ease  and  confidence  find  full  restoration. 
Viewing  matters  in  this  light,  we  are  safe  in  asserting  that 
resumption  of  specie  payments  by  our  banks,  at  so  early  and 
injudicious  a  period  as  the  first  of  January  next,  is  not  con- 
templated."2 The  banks,  though  able  to  resume  at  any  time, 
preferred  to  wait  for  a  general  resumption,  or  at  least  until 
after  the  Philadelphia  banks  had  resumed,  the  time  for 
which  had  been  set  at  April  i,  i852.s  The  Virginia  banks 
also  resumed  about  this  time. 

The  greatest  nuisance  of  the  suspension  was  the  mass  of 
foreign  depreciated  paper,  which  could  only  be  disposed  of 
through  the  bill  brokers  by  paying  a  large  discount.  The 
banks  would  not  receive  it;  in  fact,  again,  as  in  the  suspen- 
sion of  1814,  the  Baltimore  banks  refused  to  receive  the 

1  Baltimore  American,  Dec.  14,  1857.       Bankers'  Magazine,  Vol. 
VII,  p.  583.  "  Baltimore  Patriot,  Dec.  20,  1857. 

8  Baltimore  American,  Jan.  7,  1857. 


122  History  of  State  Banking  in  Maryland. 

notes  of  Maryland  country  banks,  which  not  only  caused 
great  inconvenience,  but  also  reacted  upon  the  banks,  caus- 
ing a  greater  depreciation  of  their  paper.1  This  condition 
of  affairs  offered  opportunity  to  the  banks  of  making  ar- 
rangements with  brokers  and  of  sending  out  agents  to  buy 
up  their  notes  at  the  lowest  possible  prices.  This  scheme 
was  worked  not  only  by  the  country  banks,  but  also  the  city 
banks  quietly  sent  their  agents  to  foreign  points  for  this 
purpose.2 

In  the  spring  of  1858  there  was  an  agitation  for  the  pub- 
lication of  weekly  statements  by  the  banks,  a  custom  which 
had  been  introduced  in  New  York  in  1853.  At  the  spring 
session  of  the  General  Assembly  a  bill  was  presented  to  com- 
pel the  Baltimore  banks  to  publish  a  weekly  statement  and 
those  of  the  counties  to  publish  one  monthly  in  some  one 
paper  of  their  respective  counties.  The  measure  failed  in 
the  House  of  Delegates  by  a  vote  of  38  to  28.* 

The  failure  of  two  country  banks,  both  of  Allegany 
County,  resulted  from  the  crisis.  The  Cumberland  City 
Bank,  which  had  been  established  in  May,  1858,  made  an 
assignment  on  November  26  of  the  same  year.  Noteholders 
and  depositors  were  made  preferred  claimants.  The  loss 
could  not  have  been  large.  The  report  of  the  trustees,  Jan- 
uary, 1859,  shows  the  following  items  :* 

Liabilities — Circulation $23,857 

Deposits  and  Notes  of  Banks 836 

$24-693 

Assets — Cash $3.478 

Banks 1,613 

Discounts,  Good 12,803 

"          Doubtful  and  Bad 11,603 

$29,497 

1  Baltimore  American,  Oct.  21  and  27,  1857.    '  Ibid.,  Oct.  27,  1857. 
1  Ibid.,  Mar.  10  and  13,  1858. 

4  Scharf,  Western  Maryland,  Vol.  II,  p.  1447.  Lowdermilk,  His- 
tory of  Cumberland,  p.  386. 


Banking  in  Maryland,  1810-1864.  123 

The  Mineral  Bank,  also  located  in  Allegany  County,  failed 
October  5,  1857.  The  total  liabilities  were  $199,681.  The 
trustees  paid  83^  cents  on  the  dollar  and  the  expenses  of 
settlement.1 

22.  The  Baltimore  Clearing  House. 

Just  after  resumption  in  1858  the  banks  of  Baltimore  re- 
solved unanimously  to  form  a  clearing  house.  It  began 
business  Monday,  March  8,  1858.  In  its  purpose  and  opera- 
tion it  is  very  similar  to  those  of  New  York,  Boston  and 
Philadelphia,  though  there  are  differences  of  detail  arising 
from  differences  in  the  magnitude  of  business  transacted. 

The  purpose  of  the  association  was  stated  to  be  "a  more 
perfect  and  satisfactory  settlement  of  the  daily  balances  be- 
tween them  and  the  promotion  of  their  interests."  The 
daily  exchanges  were  to  be  effected  at  one  time  and  place, 
and  at  the  same  place  the  payment  of  balances  resulting 
from  the  exchanges  was  to  be  made.  The  depository  bank 
was  to  be  in  nowise  responsible  in  regard  to  exchanges  and 
balances,  except  so  far  as  balances  were  actually  paid  into 
the  bank.  The  bank  was  not  bound  to  admit  reclamations 
for  errors  in  money  paid  out  under  its  seal,  where  the  money 
had  passed  into  the  hands  of  parties  not  members  of  the 
association.  Errors  in  the  exchanges  and  claims  arising 
from  the  return  of  checks  or  from  other  causes,  were  to  be 
adjusted  by  n  o'clock  A.  M.,  directly  between  the  banks 
which  were  parties  to  the  transaction,  and  not  through  the 
clearing  house.  In  case  of  refusal  or  inability  of  any  bank 
to  pay  promptly  checks,  drafts  or  other  items  returned  as 
not  good,  the  amount  of  such  items  was  to  be  deducted  by 
the  manager  from  the  settling  sheet  of  both  banks. 

The  officers  were  to  be  a  president,  vice-president,  secre- 
tary and  an  executive  committee  of  five,  all  chosen  annually. 
Each  bank  had  to  be  represented  at  every  meeting,  and  was 
entitled  to  one  vote.  The  executive  committee  were  to  in- 
vestigate any  matter  referred  to  them  pertaining  to  the  bank- 

1  Scharf,  Western  Maryland,  Vol.  II,  p.  1447.  Lowdermilk,  History 
of  Cumberland,  p.  385.  Md.  Laws,  1858,  cK.  291. 


124  History  of  State  Banking  in  Maryland. 

ing  interests  of  the  city;  they  had  charge  of  disciplining,  ex- 
amining and  suspending  members  of  the  association. 

The  association  appointed  one  of  its  members  a  deposi- 
tory of  such  money,  derived  from  the  exchanges,  as  any  of 
the  banks  cared  to  leave  on  special  deposit,  for  safe-keeping, 
and  for  this  the  depository  was  to  issue  certificates  signed 
by  the  cashier  or  president,  which  might  be  received  in  pay- 
ment of  balances,  at  the  clearing  house,  and  which  were 
negotiable  only  among  the  associated  banks.  Money  on 
special  deposit  could  not  be  used  by  the  depository  bank  for 
any  purpose  but  the  payment  of  certificates. 

The  depository  bank  had  the  whole  management,  and  did 
all  the  service  of  the  clearing  house,  paid  all  expenses,  and 
was  responsible  for  the  money  received  by  it  in  payment  of 
balances  due  by  the  various  banks.  For  these  services  the 
depository  bank  received  annually  thirty  cents  on  the  $1000 
of  the  capital  of  each  bank  belonging  to  the  association. 

Admission  to  the  association  was  obtained  by  application 
to  the  executive  committee,  which  had  an  examination  made 
of  the  bank  applying.  A  three-fourths  vote  of  the  associa- 
tion gave  admission.  All  banks,  members  of  the  association, 
had  to  have  their  principal  office  in  Baltimore,  and  had  to 
be  organized  under  the  laws  of  Maryland,  with  a  paid-up 
capital  of  at  least  $200,000.  An  admission  fee  of  $500  was 
charged.  The  cashier  of  the  depository  bank  was  by  the 
constitution  the  manager  of  the  clearing  house,  and  he  had 
charge  of  the  transaction  of  all  business. 

The  method  of  business  was  as  follows:  The  hour  for 
exchanges  was  9  A.  M.  sharp.  For  five  minutes'  tardiness 
or  less  a  fine  of  one  dollar  was  imposed;  for  the  second  five 
minutes'  tardiness,  or  part  of  it,  one  additional  dollar  fine; 
for  over  ten  minutes  late  the  fine  was  three  dollars.  One 
dollar  fine  was  imposed  if  errors  in  exchanges  were  not  cor- 
rected before  n  o'clock.  By  n  o'clock  the  debtor  banks 
paid  the  balances  due  from  them  either  in  money  or  certifi- 
cates. One  dollar  fine  was  payable  for  failure  to  appear  at 
this  time.  The  creditor  banks  at  12.30  P.  M.  could  receive 
the  balances  due  them  in  money  or  certificates,  at  their  op- 


Banking  in  Maryland,  1810-1864.  125 

tion,  provided  by  that  time  all  the  debtor  banks  had  paid. 
Any  member  unable  to  pay  its  indebtedness  to  the  clearing 
house  on  any  day  had  to  return  all  checks,  drafts,  notes  and 
bills  of  exchange  that  had  been  presented  to  it  that  day,  and 
the  manager  returned  them  to  the  members  from  whom  they 
were  received,  and  they  reimbursed  the  clearing  house  to 
that  amount.  If  any  member  failed  to  pay  its  balance  by  1 1 
o'clock,  and  did  not  return  the  checks  and  other  instru- 
ments received,  the  executive  committee  and  the  bank  were 
notified  by  the  manager,  and  if  by  12.30  the  balance  was 
not  paid,  the  bank  was  ruled  out  by  default,  and  the  other 
banks  immediately  reimbursed  the  clearing  house  to  the 
amount  of  their  balances  against  the  defaulting  bank  for 
that  day. 

The  chief  point  of  difference  from  the  New  York  plan  was 
the  appointment  of  one  member  of  the  association  the  depos- 
itory bank,  in  whose  banking  rooms  the  transactions  of  the 
clearing  house  were  performed,  and  whose  cashier  was  man- 
ager of  the  clearing  house.  The  smaller  number  of  banks 
clearing  and  the  smaller  amount  of  business  cleared  in  Bal- 
timore, in  comparison  with  other  cities,  permitted  this  less 
specialized  form  of  organization.  The  number  of  banks 
clearing  at  this  time  was  31.  No  accurate  indication  of 
the  extent  of  clearings  before  1864  can  be  given.  State- 
ments of  these  facts  were  never  published  by  the  clearing 
house  at  the  time,  and  the  records  of  these  years  have  been 
destroyed.  No  clearing-house  loan  certificates  had  been 
issued  up  to  1864. 

23.  Suspension  of  1860. 

The  recovery  from  the  crisis  of  1857  was  very  rapid;  the 
first  nine  months  of  the  year  1860  was  one  of  the  most  pros- 
perous seasons  in  our  history.  The  grain  crops  were  good; 
the  cotton  production  was  unparalleled.  After  the  fall  elec- 
tion, however,  the  attitude  of  the  South  created  great  alarm, 
and  the  previous  expansion  gave  way  to  contraction  and 
preparation  for  the  threatening  emergency.  Diminished 
imports  brought  considerable  gold  into  the  country.  The 
banks  were  strengthening  their  position.  A  change  of  tariff 


126  History  of  State  Banking  in  Maryland. 

reduced  the  revenue  from  this  source,  and  to  meet  its  needs 
the  government  issued  $250,000,000  in  treasury  notes. 

The  commercial  and  financial  relations  of  the  Northern 
cities  with  the  South  were  in  a  very  uncertain  condition,  and 
Northern  creditors  were  eagerly  trying  to  insure  themselves 
by  early  settlements  of  their  affairs  with  Southern  corre- 
spondents. Immediately  after  the  election  the  Southern 
banks  felt  the  withdrawal  of  their  gold,  and  it  was  thought 
that  political  motives  had  much  to  do  with  the  removal  of 
their  specie  resources  to  Northern  banks.  At  any  rate,  the 
Virginia  banks  decided  that  their  commercial,  financial  and 
political  interests  demanded  that  they  stop  this  flow  to  the 
North  by  suspension,  which  they  did  November  20.  Other 
Southern  banks  followed  on  succeeding  days.1 

This  course  necessitated  the  same  action  upon  the  part  of 
Baltimore  and  Philadelphia  banks,  which  were  heavy  credi- 
tors in  Virginia  and  elsewhere  in  the  South.  They  accord- 
ingly suspended  November  22.  Such  a  contingency  had 
been  anticipated,  and  preparation  had  been  made  for  it  in 
Baltimore,  but  the  restriction  of  the  banks  was  inflicting 
upon  the  commercial  community  the  greatest  hardships. 
For  several  days  preceding  the  suspension  it  had  been  almost 
impossible  to  negotiate  loans  upon  any  terms.2  This  strin- 
gency was  alleviated  after  the  suspension  as  far  as  circum- 
stances permitted,  and  the  public  reaped  a  substantial  bene- 
fit. This  is  shown  in  a  comparative  statement  of  the  Balti- 
more banks  for  January,  1860,  and  January,  1861 : 

JAN.,  i860.  JAN.,  l86l. 

Capital $10,328,120  $10,408,120 

Investments 679,300  679,300 

Discounts 17,533,728  18, 767,936 

Circulation 3,182,106  2,670,296 

Deposits 7,351,519  7,656,798 

Specie 2,360,870  1,850,522 

1  Bankers'  Magazine,  Vol.  XV,  p.  485. 

1  Baltimore  Patriot,  Nov.  22,  1860.  Baltimore  American,  Nov. 
22,  1860. 


Banking  in  Maryland,  1810-1864.  127 

During  February  and  March,  1861,  the  banks  of  both 
Philadelphia  and  Baltimore  prepared  for  resumption,  but  the 
suspension  continued  in  the  South,  and  rendered  the  resump- 
tion of  specie  payments  in  Maryland  hazardous.  Affairs 
generally,  however,  soon  wore  a  much  more  serious  aspect, 
and  resumption  was  indefinitely  postponed. 

In  the  fall  of  1861  the  government  borrowed  $100,000,000 
in  gold  of  the  banks.  It  was  desired  by  the  banks  that  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury  leave  this  money  with  them  and 
call  for  it  as  need  required;  this,  however,  the  Secretary  re- 
fused to  do,  and  the  specie  of  the  banks  was  drained  in  pay- 
ing the  instalments  of  the  loan.  Again,  the  Secretary  had 
no  strong  policy  to  put  forward  for  the  government,  and 
matters  went  from  bad  to  worse.  The  drain  of  gold  con- 
tinued throughout  November  and  December,  1861,  and  the 
banks  generally  drifted  into  suspension  toward  the  last  of 
December  without  great  resistance. 

Gold  immediately  rose  to  i  to  2  per  cent,  premium.  The 
quantity  of  bank  paper  and  treasury  notes,  perhaps  $400,- 
000,000  in  all,  drove  the  gold  from  circulation.  The  gov- 
ernment, to  tide  it  over  the  crisis,  began  in  April,  1862,  the 
issue  of  legal  tender  paper  money.  The  premium  on  gold 
increased  and  exchange  became  very  high.  By  August, 
1862,  all  specie  had  disappeared  from  circulation.  Further 
issues  of  legal  tender  notes  followed,  and  the  inflation  pro- 
ceeded until  gold  was  at  140  to  150,  and  later  in  1863  at  200 
to  220.  American  bonds  could  not  be  sold  abroad,  and  to 
create  a  market  for  them  the  National  Bank  Act  was  passed 
February  25,  1863,  though  it  did  not  become  operative  until 
the  next  year. 

After  the  issue  of  government  legal  tender  notes  had  be- 
gun, the  banks  redeemed  their  notes  in  this  government 
paper  when  required,  but  the  restoration  of  specie  payments 
did  not  occur  until  1879. 

The  protracted  suspension  and  the  entire  disappearance  of 
metal  money  at  an  early  date  necessitated  legislation  in 
Maryland  to  prevent  the  infliction  of  the  penalty  prescribed 


128  History  of  State  Banking  in  Maryland. 

for  suspension — forfeiture  of  charter — and  to  provide  a  small 
currency.  In  May,  1861,  it  was  made  legal  for  the  banks  to 
use  notes  or  certificates  of  deposit  less  than  one  dollar  up 
to  10  per  cent,  of  the  capital  paid  in,  though  any  bank  might 
issue  $5000  in  this  manner.  The  act  only  applied  to  banks 
already  having  the  power  of  issue,  and  its  duration  was  lim- 
ited to  two  months  after  the  session  of  the  General  Assembly 
in  I864.1  The  following  year  (March,  1862)  this  law  was 
repealed,  and  the  banks  were  allowed  to  issue  up  to  20  per 
cent,  of  their  paid-up  capital  in  notes  under  five  dollars,  but 
none  were  to  be  under  one  dollar  in  denomination.2  This 
law  was  to  terminate  May  10,  1864.  By  the  law  of  1864, 
chapter  13,  the  privilege  was  continued  indefinitely. 

Article  12,  of  the  Code  of  General  Public  Laws,  rendering 
banks  suspending  liable  to  forfeiture  of  their  charters,  was 
amended  by  the  Act  of  May  3,  i86i,3  so  that  no  corporation 
authorized  to  issue  notes  for  circulation  was  subject  to  any 
forfeiture  or  penalty  for  not  redeeming  in  specie  before 
March  n,  1862.  On  March  8,  1862,  the  exemption  was  ex- 
tended to  March  u,  1864.* 

The  great  number  of  counterfeits  current  led  to  the  repeal 
of  the  old  law  and  the  substitution  of  one  more  carefully 
worded,  so  as  to  prevent  evasions.  The  penalty,  two  to  ten 
years  in  the  penitentiary,  was  continued.5 

During  the  first  year  of  the  suspension  the  discount  line  of 
Maryland  banks  advanced  about  $1,500,000,  though  the 
amount  of  circulation  decreased.  During  1862,  in  the  midst 
of  inflation,  Maryland  banks  expanded  beyond  prudence. 
The  discounts  increased  $6,500,000  within  the  year;  the 
circulation  jumped  up  $2,900,000  and  the  deposits  $6,100,- 
ooo.  The  quotations  of  stock  for  January,  1862,  and  Janu- 
ary, 1864,  show  the  effects  of  the  expansion.  Whereas  in 
1862  the  stock  of  most  of  the  Baltimore  banks  was  more  or 


1  Md.  Laws,  1861,  ch.  n.  *  Ibid.,  1862,  ch.  138. 

8  Ibid.,  1861,  ch.  6.  *  Ibid.,  1862,  ch.  178. 

6  Ibid.,  1862,  ch.  82. 


Banking  in  Maryland,  1810-1864.  129 

less  below  par,  by  1864  the  increased  profits  from  a  large 
circulation  had  raised  them  all  to  a  premium.  The  same 
process  continued  throughout  1863,  and  in  January,  1864, 
the  Baltimore  banks  were  in  a  condition  which  would  have 
been  risky  under  any  other  circumstances  than  in  a  general 
suspension.  Loans  were  increased  $2,200,000  during  the 
year,  and  circulation  and  deposits  increased  proportionately. 
A  comparative  statement  of  their  condition  in  January  and 
July,  1863,  and  January,  1864,  follows:1 

RESOURCES.  JAN.,  1863.  JULY,  1863.  JAN.,  1864. 

Loans $18,884,027  $19,780,917  $21,058,135 

U.  S.  Stocks  .    .    .  2,352,522  3,177,201  3.630.775 

Real  Estate  .     .     .  414,450  360,526  444,154 

Other  Stocks  .    .    .  937, 039  49.014  1,488,702 

Due  from  Banks  .  .  1,701,512  1,443,308  1,654,096 

Notes  of  Banks  .    .  1,718,238  1,800,485  2,555,780 

Specie 1,810,663  1,967,179  1,553.495 


Totals.    .    .$27,818,451  $28,578,630  $32,385,137 

LIABILITIES. 

Capital £10,305,295  £10,305, 295  $10,305,295 

Circulation  ....       4,562,875  4,800,860  6,421,059 

Deposits 9,917,620  10,522,446  11,410,590 

Due  to  Banks .   .    .       1,800,879  1,758,022  2,469,361 

Profits 1,231,782  1,193,007  1,742,468 

Miscellaneous ....  36,364 


Totals  .    .    .  127,818,451     $28,578,630     $32,385,137 

24.  Effects  of  the  National  Bank  Act. 

The  passage  by  Congress  of  the  National  Bank  Act,  or, 
as  it  was  entitled,  "An  Act  to  provide  a  national  currency," 
primarily  a  financial  scheme  to  float  bonds  necessitated  by 
the  Civil  War,  brought  before  the  State  banks  the  question 

1  Bankers'  Magazine,  Vol.  XVIII,  p.  771. 


130  History  of  State  Banking  in  Maryland. 

of  reorganization.  The  defects  and  incompleteness  of  the 
first  act,  passed  in  February,  I863,1  rendered  its  effect  upon 
the  State  banks  comparatively  slight.  In  Maryland  but  one 
bank,  the  Fell's  Point,  asked  permission  of  the  Legislature 
to  reorganize.2  The  law  passed  in  June  of  the  following 
year3  was  much  more  effective  in  producing  the  desired  re- 
sults, and  finally  by  the  taxation  of  all  State  bank  notes  at  10 
per  cent,  on  July  I,  i866,4  nearly  all  the  old  banks  were 
driven  over  to  the  form  of  national  banks. 

The  question  was  raised  whether  or  not  the  State  banks 
might  change  to  national  banks  without  the  State's  permis- 
sion. The  Fell's  Point  Bank  had  taken  the  precaution  to 
secure  this  by  a  special  act  of  the  Legislature.  The  other 
banks  remained  under  their  State  charters  until  after  the 
doubt  was  put  at  rest  by  the  passage  of  an  "enabling  act"  by 
the  General  Assembly,  March  24,  1865. 

The  matter  was  complicated  by  the  fact  that  the  State  held 
considerable  bank  stock,  and  was  otherwise  the  creditor  of 
the  banks.  Further,  the  State  system  of  free  public  educa- 
tion was  largely  dependent  upon  the  receipts  from  the  free- 
school  tax  upon  banks.  In  view  of  these  facts  the  General 
Assembly  was  not  eager  to  allow  the  banks  to  pass  from  its 
control.  In  1864  a  joint  committee  of  both  houses  was  ap- 
pointed to  make  inquiry  in  regard  to  the  reorganization  of 
the  banks  under  the  National  Banking  Act.5 

The  committee  called  in  the  testimony  of  the  Hon.  Alex- 
ander Randall,  the  Attorney-General,  on  the  disputed  points. 
First,  in  regard  to  the  State's  claims  upon  the  banks,  he  de- 
cided that  as  stockholder  the  State  had  no  priority  over  other 
stockholders  or  creditors  in  event  of  failure  or  liquidation. 
As  creditor  in  other  claims  he  argued  that  the  State  had 
priority  by  virtue  of  its  prerogative  as  sovereign,  which  pri- 
ority would  be  lost  if  the  banks  became  subject  to  the  na- 

1  12  Statutes  at  Large,  665.  2  Md.  Laws,  1864,  ch.  307. 

3  13  Statutes  at  Large,  99.  *  Ibid.,  484. 

5  Journal  of  Maryland  Senate,  1864.  Proceedings  of  House  of  Del- 
egates, 1864. 


Banking  in  Maryland,  1810-1864.  131 

tional  law;  furthermore,  the  State  would  have  no  control 
over  them. 

The  committee  asked  whether  or  not  the  State  had  power 
to  prevent  the  reorganization  under  the  National  Act.  Any 
such  action,  the  Attorney-General  thought,  would  be  an  at- 
tempt to  nullify  a  law  of  .Congress,  and  hence  unconstitu- 
tional. The  only  influence  which  it  could  exert  was  by 
voting  its  shares  as  stockholder  when  the  stockholders  in 
general  meeting  decided  what  course  they  would  take. 
Likewise  in  regard  to  the  enforcement  of  the  school  fund 
tax  from  the  converted  banks,  the  principle  established  in 
the  leading  case  of  McCulloh  vs.  Maryland1  was  conceded  to 
remove  all  power  of  constraint  on  the  part  of  the  State.2 

Being  thus  unable  to  prevent  the  conversion  of  the  State 
banks  into  national  banks,  the  Legislature,  in  accordance 
with  the  advice  of  the  committee,  passed,  March  24,  1865, 
"An  Act  to  enable  any  bank,  savings  institution  or  savings 
bank  of  the  State  to  become  an  association  for  the  purposes 
of  banking  under  the  laws  of  the  United  States."3  This  priv- 
ilege was  conferred  upon  condition  that  banks  making  the 
change  first  comply  with  all  the  requirements  of  the  act  of 
the  first  session  of  the  Thirty-eighth  Congress  of  the  United 
States,  entitled,  "An  Act  to  provide  a  national  currency," 
etc.  A  bank  might  change  if  the  owners  of  three-fourths  of 
the  stock  expressed  their  consent  in  writing  to  that  effect, 
or  if  at  a  special  meeting  of  the  stockholders,  voters  holding 
two-thirds  of  the  stock  so  desired.  At  this  meeting  one  vote 
might  be  cast  for  every  share,  and  the  State  Treasurer  voted 
the  State  stock.  If  the  stockholders  decided  to  change,  the 
directors,  or  a  majority  of  them,  could  execute  the  organiza- 
tion certificate  and  such  other  papers  as  were  necessary,  and 
could  perform  all  other  acts  necessary  for  the  conversion. 

The  bank  was  ordered  to  present  to  the  Clerk -of  the  Court 

1  4  Wheat.  436.     See  p.  72. 

2  Communication  from  Hon.  Alex.  Randall  to  the  General  Assem- 
bly, Mar.  7,  1865. 

3  Md.  Laws,  1865,  ch.  144. 


132  History  of  State  Banking  in  Maryland. 

of  Appeals  of  Maryland  a  certificate  from  the  Comptroller  of 
the  Currency  that  the  bank  concerned  had  become  a  national 
bank;  this  certificate  was  to  be  recorded  by  the  clerk,  and  a 
copy  sent  to  the  Governor,  who  was  to  have  it  published  in 
the  locality  of  the  bank.  Its  charter  was  considered  to  be 
surrendered  and  its  corporate  powers  to  cease,  though  it 
could  continue  to  use  its  corporate  name  in  closing  its 
affairs.  No  State  bank  money  was  allowed  to  be  reissued 
for  more  than  one  year  after  the  surrender  of  the  charter. 

Contrary  to  the  opinion  of  the  Attorney-General,  all  taxes 
were  to  be  continued  as  before.  All  the  assets  without  fur- 
ther transfer  were  to  vest  in  the  association,  and  it  became 
responsible  for  all  debts  incurred  previously  to  the  surrender 
of  the  charter.  Destruction  of  all  plates  and  dies  was  pro- 
vided for. 

Within  the  year  1865  twenty-four  banks  passed  over  to  the 
new  form;  only  six  State  banks  were  left  in  1867;  these  con- 
tinued in  existence  as  State  banks  until  after  1871,  when  at 
different  intervals  all  became  national  banks  except  two,  the 
People's  of  Baltimore  and  the  Hagerstown.  A  small  num- 
ber of  savings  banks,  perhaps  two,  also  changed  over  in 
1865. 

Although  in  the  enabling  act  the  State  tried  to  continue  in 
force  the  taxes  which  had  formerly  been  collected,  it  was 
unsuccessful.  By  1867  the  school  fund  tax  had  dropped 
from  about  $35,000  to  $3805,  and  the  banks  refused  to  pay  it.1 

In  1866  it  was  decided  to  dispose  of  the  State  bank  stock, 
amounting  then  to  $463,406, 2  and  the  Governor,  Comptroller 
and  Treasurer  of  the  State  were  authorized  to  sell  it  at  not 
less  than  its  par  value,  and  to  invest  the  proceeds  in  funded 
debt  of  the  State.3 

25.  Conclusion. 

In  the  economic  condition  of  Maryland  after  the  close  of 
the  Revolutionary  War  is  to  be  found  the  natural  explana- 

1  Report  of  Comptroller  of  Currency  of  Md.,  1867.        2  Ibid. 
8  Md.  Laws,  1866,  ch.  170.     Ibid.,  1872,  ch.  275.     Bankers'  Maga- 
zine, Vol.  XX,  March. 


Banking  in  Maryland,  1810-1864. 

tion  of  the  introduction  of  banking  into  this  State.  In  the 
face  of  an  important  and  rapidly-developing  commerce,  and 
feeling  the  inconvenience  of  a  very  limited  circulation  of  for- 
eign coins  of  unstable  value  and  of  depreciated  American 
paper  money,  the  State  Legislature  persistently  refused  fur- 
ther issues  of  bills  of  credit.  Under  such  circumstances  the 
citizens  turned  to  a  study  of  other  commercial  States,  Scot- 
land, England,  Holland  and  Genoa,  and  resolved  that  it 
would  be  expedient  to  establish  a  bank.  This  close  rela- 
tionship between  the  industrial  development  of  the  State  and 
her  banking  facilities  is  a  noticeable  feature  of  Maryland  his- 
tory. The  periods  of  banking  expansion  have  in  each  in- 
stance been  times  of  corresponding  industrial  development 
and  prosperity,  and  the  enlargement  of  banking  facilities  has 
kept  pace  with  the  growing  industrial  needs.  The  develop- 
ment of  the  resources  of  the  State  was  the  object  of  a  general 
extension  of  banking  advantages  to  the  counties  in  the  years 
1810-12.  About  the  same  time  this  feature  comes  out 
strongly  again  in  the  part  the  banks  played  in  the  internal 
improvements  of  the  State,  when  they  entered  actively  into 
the  work  and  actually  became  jointly  incorporated  as  turn- 
pike road  companies.  The  value  of  the  service  of  the  banks 
to  the  State  can  hardly  be  exaggerated.  On  the  other  hand, 
there  has  been  comparatively  little  of  deleterious  effect.  Very 
few  speculative  attempts  of  individual  capitalists  have  oc- 
curred. Vices  of  practice  have  existed,  as  under  all  sys- 
tems, but  willful  fraud  upon  the  public  has  been  rare.  Since 
1820  the  necessary  loss  by  the  public  from  insolvent  banks 
has  been  remarkably  small.  From  1820  to  1864  but  two 
failures  occurred  in  the  city  of  Baltimore.  No  radical  steps 
for  the  cure  of  evils  became  necessary. 

Maryland  banks  were  rendered  of  a  public  character  in 
two  ways.  First,  by  a  State  subscription  to  the  capital  stock 
of  the  early  banks,  and  the  reservation  of  the  privilege  to 
subscribe  in  all;  and,  secondly,  by  providing  an  opportunity 
for  all  to  subscribe  to  the  stock  of  the  banks  at  the  time  of 
their  organization  by  an  allotment  of  their  stock  to  Balti- 


134  History  of  State  Banking  in  Maryland. 

more  and  the  various  counties  for  subscription.  This  ceased 
to  occur  as  soon  as  the  general  extension  of  banking  reduced 
the  monopolistic  element  to  a  minimum.  The  further  step 
of  free  banking  under  a  general  law  was  not  taken  in  Mary- 
land;1 it  preferred  to  retain  closer  control  by  necessitating 
special  legislative  enactment  to  suit  the  requirements  of  each 
case.  Although  under  these  conditions  opportunity  for 
political  bargaining  was  offered,  nevertheless  no  evidence 
has  been  found  indicating  that  other  considerations  than  the 
public  interest  were  of  weight  in  the  decision  of  measures 
brought  before  the  Legislature,  except  in  the  first  few  years 
of  banking  in  the  State. 

The  chief  elements  of  the  system  appear  in  the  first  char- 
ter; (i)  special  legislation  in  each  case,  (2)  broad  regulations, 
liberal  powers,  freedom  of  action,  few  restrictions.  An 
eager  competition,  enforcing  prompt  attention  to  contracts, 
rendered  careful  administration  a  necessity  for  survival.  In 
the  first  place  the  ideas  adopted  were  not  native  to  Maryland, 
but  had  been  worked  out  elsewhere,  notably  by  the  Scotch 
banks  and  the  first  Bank  of  the  United  States.  In  the  adap- 
tation of  principles  to  suit  Maryland  conditions,  the  State's 
own  experience  was  the  teacher,  and  changes  were  only  in- 
troduced when  deficiencies  appeared  under  the  actual  work- 
ing of  the  system.  Very  little  was  developed  that  was  new; 
at  the  same  time,  disastrous  experimentation,  under  which 
other  States  suffered  so  much,  was  avoided.  Even  the  lead 
of  more  progressive  States  was  not  followed  in  the  adoption 
of  advance  ideas. 

The  lack  of  uniformity  in  the  regulations  controlling  the 
various  banks  was  for  a  long  time  a  source  of  confusion. 
This  was  partially  remedied  by  making  all  the  banks  subject 
to  the  fundamental  principles  of  the  charter  of  .the  Mer- 
chants' Bank  of  Baltimore  in  1835,  and  further,  by  the  pas- 
sage of  a  general  banking  law  in  1852.  State  inspection  for 


1  A  free  banking  law  was  passed  in  1870. 


Banking  in  Maryland,  1810-1864.  135 

public  security  alone,  and  not  by  the  State  as  stockholder, 
was  arrived  at  long  after  it  had  been  adopted  by  other  States. 
Stockholders  and  directors,  except  in  cases  of  maladminis- 
tration, were  never  made  personally  liable  beyond  the  extent 
of  their  shares.  There  were  no  preferred  claimants  in  case 
of  insolvency. 

The  issue  of  notes  was  competitive,  upon  the  general  credit 
of  the  banks.  Issue  upon  the  deposit  of  bonds  was  rejected 
to  preserve  a  greater  elasticity  of  the  currency  and  greater 
possible  profits.  The  payment  of  interest  on  deposits  was 
general  from  an  early  time,  and  stimulated  to  the  utmost 
economical  habits  on  the  part  of  the  public.  The  practice 
of  daily  settlements  among  the  Baltimore  banks  rendered 
necessary  the  exercise  of  the  greatest  skill  and  care  in  ad- 
ministration, and  the  brisk  competition  between  each  other 
and  the  branches  of  the  two  United  States  banks,  for  a  large 
part  of  the  time,  was  most  salutary. 

In  the  performance  of  their  functions  they  responded  to 
the  needs  of  the  State  at  all  times  as  well  as  might  be  under 
the  circumstances.  Maryland's  central  situation  as  creditor 
of  the  South  and  debtor  of  the  North  must  be  constantly 
borne  in  mind  in  understanding  the  position  of  her  financial 
institutions.  After  the  period  1814-20,  during  which  the 
Maryland  country  banks  were  in  wretched  condition,  the 
Maryland  banks  never  ceased  to  redeem  on  demand  in  specie 
except  during  times  of  general  suspension.  A  number  of 
crises  were  passed  with  comparatively  little  inconvenience  to 
Maryland's  business  men.  The  cases  of  insolvency  have 
been  remarkably  few  in  Baltimore,  three  in  all,  with  no  loss 
ultimately  falling  upon  depositors  and  noteholders.  Since 
1820  bankruptcy  has  concerned  but  five  county  banks;  only 
two  of  the  five  were  of  any  consequence,  and  the  loss  was 
small. 

In  answering  the  final  questions  we  can  say  that  the  cur- 
rency was  always  highly  elastic,  ultimately  secure,  excepting 
the  period  1814-20  for  the  country  banks,  and  convertible 
upon  demand  except  in  time  of  general  suspension.  For  the 


136  History  of  State  Banking  in  Maryland. 

shareholders  they  earned  fair  dividends,  not  large,  except  in 
the  first  few  years.  They  collected  the  free  capital  and 
turned  it  to  the  assistance  of  every  form  of  industry  within 
the  State.  A  long  period  of  very  conservative  banking  won 
the  entire  confidence  of  the  people.  The  Legislature  did  not 
intrude  upon  the  banker's  domain.  To  this  strongly  con- 
servative spirit  was  doubtless  due  to  large  extent  the  success 
of  a  system  which,  owing  to  its  freedom  from  restrictions, 
proved  deficient  under  other  circumstances. 


Maryland  State  Bank  Statistics.  137 


APPENDIX  I. 
MARYLAND  STATE  BANK  STATISTICS. 


TABLE  I. 

The  circulation  and  deposits  of  Baltimore  State  Banks 
(except  the  Bank  of  Maryland),  from  January  i,  1817,  to 
January  I,  1830: 


JAN. 

CIRCULATION. 

DEPOSITS. 

TOTAL. 

1817 

$2,727,230 

$2,108,560 

$4,835,790 

1818 

1,742,780 

1,697,290 

3,440,070 

1819 

1,662,320 

1,248,470 

2,910,790 

1820 

1,229,540 

1,226,690 

2,456,230 

1821 

I,020,O8O 

1,382,850 

2,402,930 

1822 

1,214,030 

1,533,440 

2,747,470 

1823 

1,031,750 

1,261,330 

2,293,080 

1824 

1,113,750 

1,441,160 

2,554,910 

1825 

i,537,6io 

1,581,850 

2,936,460 

1826 

1,519,190 

1,528,220 

3,047,410 

1827 

1,347,690 

1,629,620 

2,977-310 

1828 

1,272,190 

1,724,160 

2,996.350 

1829 

1,422,970 

1,633,010 

3,055,980 

1830 

1,299,760 

1,349,770 

2,649,530 

138 


History  of  State  Banking  in  Maryland. 


W     .3 


55 

.OtOOvOIOHitMOOOHi     .  «  <M  N  OO  f^VD  «  O  OO  HI  TJ-  Q     .OO     . 

uj^r^s-wiOHiooroovo       o  fyCO  1000  ioNO\N^-r^o      wvo 
.  vo  iovo  oi/^toio»-*oo^o    .ro"-ivor^u^c«Nooiot^io*o  .Tj-r^   , 

OTHER 
RESOURCI 

fo  to  r^oo  N  r^oo  loi/^n       ^-i-t^ro^ao  1000  fO  ^  r^  »H      oo  "-< 
•  ovo  ura-j^nioON  ooo    •          KIO<S«<^OWI-I\O'J-'     oo    • 

•  *4             «         w  «         w           _                                     10>0 

SPECIE. 

10  o  r^cao  vo  CT-O  M  M  mooo  ^rom-^i-'  o  m>-"  t-«oo  wooco  w  fO»o 

O   C>  ^J-  0  VO   IO  O»   CM   N   O  00   t^OO   »-<ror^r^,->olOVO^"-<i-'»n  t-*00    O 

f 

::::.:::::  •^gHiH'Hs  •  -^  • 

v,               M  10                   in           HI  « 

<n  ^ 

HI                                   HI 

(/) 

K> 

C 
rt 
CQ 

b 

O  uj 

IOVO  NVO  C^r^MOO  O  rOlO  POVO  OlOtOO  r^Ht  ^rOPO  tOX  00  C?v  O  O 

V)  ij 

!  £  a  Sp.  si  %l  i  H  S  H  §  H-li  S^<|  H  s  ^ 

cd 

4-1 

CO 

O  B 

z 

•d 

C 
OS 

H 

li^l^sHHg  l»5  g§?Sf  ?? 

b 

CO 

2">o"S)5-loo'o"ov^r7M?oSrgi,(g'st8  S  R"  S  ^M  o  SS-o;? 

cd 

V-i 

REAL  F 

urces  c 

FROM 
INKS. 

o 

CO 

V 

D  « 
Q 

*O 

13 

OCRS. 

ON  O   HI    Tj-ioCNiO'-'   •^•rO^}"r-»  r-.O  00   ONI—   roQNO   r--i-"VOCOCC   CM   *^-t-*- 
TJ-  r-.vO   lOGO    O^  ONsO   O   "">  CM   t^>  t^OO   ON  ONVO  CC  VO  VO   t-*VO  CO  CO  VO  OO  CO   HI 

(2 

in 

Z  H 

S^^5H^^?3=  ^SS5» 

8§ 

IO  1O  ^OO  OO   lOlOT^lO^Co'    lOCM   rO  r-.CC   "•   rO  lOvO   CMoOCOCO   (N   ^-ONQ 

<  u 

COON-^iOiOrON  HI  o  O  i-.i-irO(N  rO^  lOCO  t^.O'NHiH.orMr^rOHi 

S  5 

BANKS. 

»ff5aasS8888>t88S  ffffSPffRRRSSRa  R^g 

« 

H 

£>o3<x  o?o?co  oo  oo  co  do"  oo  oo  oo  oo  cc  oo  ccoo'oo  oc  oo  oo  oc'S  oo  co  oo  oo 

Maryland  State  Bank  Statistics. 


139 


05 

V  4> 

Xi  4— » 

'•a  c/5 

0  la 

I  ~ 

1—1  k2 

[jj  ^ 

«  W 


J3 

OS 


rt 
'  O 

H 


x  - 
i;  S 
O< 


!O>  O  O^VO  w  .vOM001O-*IOOOO>-icOt^lO'tOO<1l 

NOOOJCOHi  lO^t^OcO^J-COOO   CO^O    ON  CO  Tj-  IO  CO 

IO  IOOO   lOIOO^lN'O1**  «Or6«OCOHii-rH4Oo'cf>cf't^  f^vo"  *+   lOOO** 

•  "  O    O   COO    MTJ-CONHI  •                             COt^ONCOt^Tj-HtiON    COOO   r-~. 

*  '  **  W    nT                  t-T  "                                                                                                           W~  M'  Hi" 


-  to  <T-  M  cr-  o  M"  rooo 

^"CO   IO  lO^C    rolOMV 

^-vo  •-  oo  oo  PI  t^  N 


rf-CO   N    rOt^ 

pf  N  oo'v^Too'  t-T  ^  10  -^  10  ^f  oo'  r^ 

fON   t^Tf-'-t   C4    O^U^W   Ol    O^O 

t>  c^vo  co  10  ox»  «  t>  co  M  M 


IOXO  r^-OO  NOO 
COOO  r^  co  ro  co  1 

°.  M,  't  N,  "-^t 
10  Tp  o"  ^  o^vo  v 
- 


.         ..  .        „    . 

coo"  cT  »-«'  oo'  o  M"  »H'OO"  Tp^o'  r^  o  o 
oo  voooMvot^>-i-<rM  r^oo  co  r^  M 

»-^  O>  N  \O_  Cf_  CO^O   IO  O  00    O  VO   t^-  -^ 


.O   w"  nf  p"  p   O 


BO  «*M  f|  ft  M  M  D 


N  O   M   W   TO  -^  IT)  t 

---<-<- 


oooococococooocooooooocooooococooooocooooococo 


Bibliography.  141 


APPENDIX    II. 
BIBLIOGRAPHY. 

Bibliographical  Note. — Information  about  State  banks 
before  1830  is  very  meagre.  Contemporary  periodicals, 
especially  Niles'  Register,  have  been  of  great  service  for  this 
period.  Considerable  statistical  information  has  been  tabu- 
lated in  the  report  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  for  1876, 
and  in  the  special  report  of  January  28,  1893.  This,  how- 
ever, is  abridged  from  the  tables  appended  to  Gallatin's 
"Considerations  on  the  Currency,"  and  from  Elliot's  "Fund- 
ing System."  Of  especial  value  have  been  several  reports 
of  Baltimore  banks  to  their  stockholders,  in  which  various 
facts  have  been  collected.  After  1827  the  reports  to  the 
State  Legislature  became  regular;  tables,  not  otherwise  ac- 
credited, have  been  compiled  from  these.  The  following 
are  the  more  important  works  which  have  been  consulted : 

A  Brief  Exposition  of  the  Leading  Principles  of  a  Bank, 

Baltimore,  1795. 

A  Peep  into  the  Banks.  By  an  Observer,  N.  Y.,  1828. 
Baker,  H.  F.,  Banks  and  Banking  in  the  United  States,  Cin- 
cinnati, 1854. 

Also  Articles  in  Bankers'  Magazine,  1854-56. 
Baltimore  Daily  Repository,  1790. 
Bank  of  Maryland.     Reports,  Baltimore,  1835-49. 
An  Appeal  to  the  Creditors  of,  by  Evan  Poultney,  Balti- 
more, 1835. 

Report  of  the  Case  of  Bank  of  Maryland  vs.  Sam'l  Poult- 
ney and  Wm.  M.  Ellicott,  Harford  Co.  Court,  March, 
1836.  Balto.,  1836. 


142  History  of  State  Banking  in  Maryland. 

Bank  of  the  United  States.  Losses  at  Baltimore,  Balto., 
1823. 

Bankers'  Magazine. 

Berkey,  W.  A.,  The  Money  Question,  Grand  Rapids,  Mich., 
1876. 

Bolles,  A.  S.,  Financial  History  of  the  United  States,  3  Vols., 
N.  Y.,  1870-86. 

Bollman,  E.,  Paragraphs  on  Banks,  Phila.,  1811. 

Carey,  M.,  Essays  on  Banking,  Phila.,  1816. 

Conspiracy  Cases.  Losses  of  the  U.  S.  Branch  Bank  at 
Baltimore,  Balto.,  1823. 

Democratic  Review,  especially  Vols.  5,  7  and  22. 

Dunbar,  C.  F.,  Theory  and  History  of  Banking,  N.  Y.,  1891. 
Currency,  Finance  and  Banking,  United  States  Laws  Re- 
lating to,  Boston,  1891. 

Ellicott,  Thos.,  Bank  of  Maryland  Conspiracy,  etc.,  Phila., 

1839- 
Elliot,  J.,  Funding  System  of  the  United  States,  Sen.  Doc., 

1845- 

Federal  Gazette  and  Baltimore  Daily  Advertiser,  1784. 
Fisk,  T.,  The  Banking  Bubble  Burst;  A  History  of  the 

American  Banking  System,  Charleston,  S.  C.,  1837. 
Fowler,  F.  M.,  and  Evan  Poultney,  Testimony  in  case  of 

Bank  of  Maryland  vs.  S.  Poultney  and  Wm.  M.  Ellicott, 

Harford  Co.  Court,  Man,  1836.     Balto.,  1840. 
Gallatin,  A.,  Considerations  on  the  Currency  and  Banking 

System  of  the  United  States,  Phila.,  1831. 
Suggestions  on  the  Banks  and  Currency  of  the  Several 

United  States,  etc.,  N.  Y.,  1841. 

Gilbart,  History  and  Principles  of  Banking.     Bonn  Ed. 
Gouge,  W.  M.,  Short  History  of  Money  and  Banking  in  the 

United  States,  Phila.,  1833.     Reprint  1842. 
Journal  of  Banking,  Phila.,  1842. 
Griffiths,  Annals  of  Baltimore. 
Howard,  Geo.  W.,  The  Monumental  City :  Its  Past  History 

and  Present  Resources,  Balto.,  1873. 


Bibliography.  143 

Jevons,  W.  S.,  Money  and  the  Mechanism  of  Exchange. 
Johnston,  Geo.,  History  of  Cecil  County,  Md.,  Elkton,  1881. 
Journal  of  Maryland  Senate. 
Keyes,  E.  W.,  History  of  Savings  Banks  in  the  United 

States,  2  Vols.,  N.  Y.,  1878. 
Knox,  J.  J.,  United  States  Notes,  N.  Y.,  1884. 
Linderman,  H.  R.,  Money  and  Legal  Tender,  N.  Y.,  1877. 
Lowdermilk,  Will  H.,  History  of  Cumberland,  Md.,  Wash., 

1878. 
Martin,  Warwick,  The  Money  of  Nations  Historically  and 

Legally  Considered,  Wash.,  1880. 
Maryland  Laws. 

Mayer,  Brantz,  History  of  Baltimore. 
McSherry,  History  of  Maryland. 
Niles'  Register,  Baltimore,  1811-50. 
North  American  Review,  especially  Vols.  86  and  99. 
Observations  on  an  Act  to  Establish  the  Farmers'  Bank  of 

Maryland,  Anon.,  Annap.,  1805. 
Pitkin,  Timothy,  A  Statistical  View  of  the  Commerce  of  the 

United  States,  N.  Y.,  1817. 
Poor,  H.'  V.,  Money  and  Its  Laws,  N.  Y.,  1877. 
Raguet,  Condy,  Inquiry  into  the  Causes  of  the  Present  State 

of  the  Circulating  Medium  of  the  United  States,  Phila., 

1815. 

Treatise  on  Currency  and  Banking,  Phila.,  1839. 
Report  of  Comptroller  of  Currency,  1876.     Wash. 
Report,  Special,  of  Sec.  of  Treasury,  Jan.  28,  1893.    Wash. 
Reports  to  Stockholders  of  Union  Bank,  1821  and  1830, 

Balto. 
Reports  of  Com.  on  Currency  to  Md.  Leg.,  1838-41,  Annap. 

(Md.  Pub.  Doc.) 

Reports  of  Treasurer  of  Western  Shore  of  Maryland,  An- 
nap. (Md.  Pub.  Doc.), 1828-43. 

Reports  of  State  Treasurer,  1847-64,  Annap.  (Md.  Pub.  Doc.) 
Reports  of  Comptroller  of  Treasury  of  Md.,  1852-64,  Annap. 
Rhodes,  Journal  of  Banking. 


144  History  of  State  Banking  in  Maryland. 

Scharf,  J.  F.,  History  of  Maryland,  3  Vols. 

Chronicles  of  Baltimore. 

Western  Maryland. 

Smith,  Adam,  Wealth  of  Nations  (Bohn  Ed.) 
State  Banks,  Wash.,  1838.    (Report  of  Sec.  of  Treas.,  June 

7,  1838.) 

Webster,  Pelatiah,  Political  Essays,  Phila.,  1791. 
White,  Horace,  Money  and  Banking,  Boston,  1895. 
Votes  and  Proceedings  of  Maryland  House  of  Delegates. 


History  of  the  Know  Nothing  Party 


IN 


Maryland. 


SERIES  XVII  Nos.  4-5 

JOHNS  HOPKINS  UNIVERSITY  STUDIES 

IN 

HISTORICAL  AND   POLITICAL  SCIENCE 

HERBERT  B.  ADAMS,  Editor 


History  is  past  Politics  and  Politics  are  present  History. — Freeman 


History  of  the  Know  Nothing  Party 


IN 


Maryland 


BY 

LAURENCE  FREDERICK  SCHMECKEBIER 

Fellow  in  History,  Johns  Hopkins  University 


THE  JOHNS  HOPKINS  PRESS,  BALTIMORE 
PUBLISHED  MONTHLY 
APRIL-MAY,  1899 


COPYRIGHT,   1899,   BY  N.   MURRAY. 


PREFACE. 


This  study  of  the  Know  Nothing  party  in  Maryland  was 
undertaken  at  the  suggestion  of  Dr.  B.  C.  Steiner,  of  the 
Johns  Hopkins  University.  The  success  of  the  Know 
Nothing  party  in  Maryland  has  never  been  really  under- 
stood. Partisan  bias  and  personal  feeling  have  too  often 
obscured  the  essential  elements  in  the  progress  of  the 
party.  Removed  as  we  are  forty  years  from  the  heated 
politics  of  the  time,  it  is  possible  to  give  that  calm  con- 
sideration which  the  subject  requires.  At  the  same  time 
the  interval  is  not  too  great  to  preclude  the  possibility  of 
interviews  with  men  who  were  contemporary  with  the 
events  narrated. 

The  work  has  involved  searching  the  files  of  many  faded 
and  dusty  newspapers.  These  have  been  the  principal 
sources  of  information.  The  numerous  pamphlets  quoted 
have  also  greatly  supplemented  the  information  given  by 
the  newspapers.  Use  has  also  been  made  of  other  inci- 
dental authorities  which  the  footnotes  show  in  all  impor- 
tant cases.  By  no  means  the  least  enjoyable  part  of  the 
work  has  been  the  numerous  interviews  with  "survivors" 
of  the  period.  The  uniform  courtesy  shown,  and  the  will- 
ingness to  help  an  historical  student  have  been  extremely 
gratifying. 

For  valuable  suggestions  or  information,  the  writer  de- 
sires to  express  his  thanks  to  Professor  H.  B.  Adams  and 
to  Drs.  Vincent,  Steiner,  Hollander  and  Ballagh,  of  the 
Johns  Hopkins  University;  also  to  others  who  have  as- 
sisted the  writer  by  personal  reminiscences  of  their  experi- 
ences of  this  turbulent  time  in  American  politics. 

5 


CONTENTS. 


PAGE 

I.    INTRODUCTION 9 

II.    GROWTH  OF  THE  PARTY  IN  MARYLAND 13 

First  Appearance  of  the  Party 13 

Previous  Opposition  to  Foreigners 13 

Quiet  Growth  of  the  Party             14 

The  Campaign  of  1853 15 

Increased  Opposition  to  the  Catholics                            .  16 

Election  in  Hagerstown 17 

Election  in  Cumberland 17 

Activity  of  the  Party  in  Baltimore 17 

The  Democrats  Denounce  the  Know  Nothings      .       .18 
Secret  Convention  of  the  Know  Nothings        .       .       .18 

Campaign  and  Election  of  1854 18 

Continued  Growth  of  the  Party    .       .       . ,      .       .       .19 

Victories  in  Other  States 20 

Secret  Machinery  Given  Up 21 

National  Convention,  1855 21 

State  Convention 22 

The  Opposition  to  the  Catholics 23 

The  Campaign  of  1855 25 

Success  of  the  Know  Nothings 29 

The  Know  Nothing  Legislature,  1856       ....  29 

The  Governor's  Message 30 

Investigation  of  Secret  Political  Societies        .       .       .31 

Investigation  of  Convents 33 

Election  of  Senator 34 

National  Convention,  1856 35 

Conventions  of  the  Other  Parties 36 

Campaign  of  1856 36 

Municipal  Election,  1856 37 

Presidential  Election,  1856 39 

Result  of  the  Election 40 

Disorder 41 

Political  Clubs 43 

Disorder  in  Other  Cities 44 

6 


Contents.  1 

PAGE 

III.  CAUSES  OF  THE  SUCCESS  OF  THE  KNOW  NOTHINGS  .       .   46 

Opposition  to  the  Immigrants 46 

Increased  Immigration 46 

Radical  Demands  of  Some  of  the  Germans     ...  47 

The  Immigrant  in  Politics 50 

Immigration  and  Slavery 52 

Opposition  to  the  Catholics .  53 

An  Inheritance  from  Colonial  Times 54 

The  Catholics  Endeavor  to  Get  a  Division  of  the  School 

Fund 55 

The  Catholics  in  Other  States 58 

A  Papal  Legate 59 

The  Papacy        .       .       . 59 

Other  Reasons  for  Opposition  to  the  Catholics       .       .  61 

Slavery 62 

The  Position  of  Maryland 62 

The  Attitude  of  the  Know  Nothing  Party        .  -63 

Popularity  of  Millard  Fillmore 65 

Disappearance  of  the  Whig  Party 66 

Dissatisfaction  Among  the  Democrats      .       .       .       .68 

Political  Unrest 68 

Summary 69 

IV.  HEIGHT  OF  KNOW  NOTHING  SUCCESS,  1857-58    ...    70 

The  Municipal  Election  in  Washington     .       .       .       .70 

The  Last  National  Convention 71 

The  Campaign  of  1857 71 

The  Governor  Proceeds  to  Baltimore       .       .       .       .73 
Correspondence  between  Governor  Ligon  and  Mayor 

Swann 74 

The  Governor  Withdraws 84 

The  Election  of  1857 87 

Contested  Elections 88 

A  Second  Know  Nothing  Legislature,  1858     .  -9° 

The  Governor's  Message 90 

Debate  in  the  House  of  Delegates 92 

Act  for  a  Constitutional  Convention 94 

Work  of  the  Legislature 96 

Baltimore  Election,  1858 97 

Result  of  this  Election 98 

V.    DOWNFALL  OF  KNOWNOTHINGISM,  1859-60     .       .       .       .99 

Increasing  Disorder 99 

The  Know  Nothings  Fight  Among  Themselves     .       .    99 


8  Contents. 

PAGE 

V.    DOWNFALL  OF  KNOWNOTHINGISM,  1859-60 — Continued. 

Reform  Movement  Started 100 

Grand  Rally  of  the  Know  Nothings    ....         101 

The  Election  and  its  Result 102 

Contested  Elections 103 

State  vs.  Jarrett 104 

A  Democratic  Legislature,  1860 105 

Baltimore  Police   Put  in    the    Control    of  the    State 

Authorities «...  105 

Black  Republicans 105 

Judge  Stump  Removed 107 

Henry  Winter  Davis  Censured 107 

His  Reply 107 

The  Mayor  and  City  Council  Refuse  to  Surrender  the 

Police  Force  to  the  State  Commissioners     .       .       .  109 

Decision  of  the  Court  of  Appeals no 

The  Municipal  Campaign  of  1860  in  Baltimore       .       .112 

Last  Tricks  of  the  Know  Nothings 113 

The  Election 113 

End  of  the  Know  Nothings 114 

The  Administration  of  the  Know  Nothings       .       .       .115 

III.    CONCLUSION 116 

Appendix  A,  National  Platform,  1855        •       •       •       •  IJ9 
Appendix  B,  National  Platform,  1856        .  123 


History  of  the  Know  Nothing  Party  in 
Maryland. 


I.    INTRODUCTION. 

When  Alexis  de  Tocqueville  visited  the  United  States  in 
1832,  he  was  struck  by  the  great  freedom  of  the  people  in 
forming  associations  of  all  kinds,  and  especially  upon  the 
liberty  with  which  political  associations  were  formed. 
Commenting  upon  this  he  said :  "It  cannot  be  denied  that 
the  unrestrained  liberty  of  association  for  political  pur- 
poses is  a  privilege  which  a  people  is  longest  in  learning 
how  to  exercise.  If  it  does  not  throw  the  nation  into  an- 
archy, it  perpetually  augments  the  chances  of  that  calamity. 
On  one  point,  however,  this  perilous  liberty  offers  a  security 
against  dangers  of  another  kind ;  in  countries  where  asso- 
ciations are  free,  secret  societies  are  unknown.  In  America 
there  are  numerous  factions,  but  no  conspirators."1 

What  would  have  been  the  surprise  of  De  Tocqueville  if 
he  had  visited  the  United  States  two  decades  later  and  seen 
a  secret  oath-bound  organization  sweeping  all  before  it  in 
a  triumphal  march  through  the  United  States.  Such  an 
organization  was  the  "Know  Nothing"  or  American  party.2 

1  De  Tocqueville  :  "  Democracy  in  America,"  I,  236. 

2  After  the  secret  machinery  was  discarded,  the  party  called  itself 
the  "American  "  party.     However,  it  was  always  popularly  known 
as  the  "Know  Nothing"  party,  and  will  always  be  referred  to  as 
such  in  this  monograph.    The  official  name  of  the  order  and  of  the 
party  was  always  the  American  party,  and  not  the  "  Supreme  Order 
of  the  Star  Spangled  Banner,"  as  stated  by  Mr.  James  Ford  Rhodes  in 
his  history.     Mr.  Rhodes  has  taken  his  description  from  Hamble- 

9 


10         History  of  Know  Nothing  Party  in  Maryland.      [154 

Obscure  in  its  origin,  its  growth  and  membership  known 
only  to  its  officers,  it  first  made  its  strength  felt  by  its  suc- 
cesses in  local  elections,  where  in  many  cases  persons  who 
had  not  been  candidates  were  elected  to  office,  or  in  other 
cases  the  members  of  the  party  split  the  old  tickets  and  voted 
for  the  candidate  favorable  to  their  views.  A  unique  phe- 
nomenon, indeed,  in  American  politics  was  this  new  organi- 
zation. With  all  its  proceedings  shrouded  in  secrecy,  it 
managed  to  exist  for  several  years  before  any  accounts  of  it, 
except  the  vaguest  generalities,  found  their  way  into  the 
newspapers.  The  call  for  a  meeting  was  never  published, 
and  the  members  were  merely  notified  by  bits  of  white  paper 
stuck  on  fences  and  lamp-posts  and  scattered  over  the 
streets.  In  the  early  stage  there  was  no  public  propaganda 
of  its  beliefs,  and  its  membership  was  recruited  and  extended 
merely  through  personal  solicitation.  A  member  of  the 
order  would  feel  his  way  cautiously  in  conversation  with  a 
friend,  and  if  he  found  him  favorably  disposed,  would 
undertake  to  conduct  him  into  the  august  presence  of  "Sam," 
this  being  the  name  by  which  the  order  was  popularly 
known.  This  name  was  acquired  from  the  fact  that  one 
member  on  meeting  another  would  ask  as  a  pass-word: 
"Have  you  seen  Sam?"  The  answer  would  show  whether 
the  person  questioned  was  a  member  of  the  order.  All  over 
the  country  extended  the  secret  party,  the  organization  ris- 
ing from  the  local  Council  in  the  ward  or  county,  through 
the  Superior  Council  of  the  large  cities,  the  State  Coun- 
cils, and  culminating  in  the  National  Council. 

To  the  inquirer  who  asked  of  the  member  who  had 
attended  a  meeting,  where  he  had  been,  the  answer  was 
invariably,  "I  don't  know,"  and  the  same  answer  was 
given  to  all  inquiries  concerning  the  object  and  purposes 

ton's  "History  of  the  Campaign  in  Virginia  in  1855,"  a  contemporary 
work,  very  bitterly  opposed  to  the  Know  Nothings.  I  have  been 
assured  by  the  recording  secretary  of  the  National  Council  and  sev- 
eral of  the  surviving  members  of  the  party,  that  it  never  had  any 
other  name  officially  than  the  American  party. 


155]  Introduction.  11 

of  the  order.  It  was  thus  that  the  party  got  its  popular 
sobriquet  of  "Know  Nothing."  A  system  of  pass-words, 
grips  and  countersigns  made  known  the  members  to  one 
another  and  prevented  the  inquisitive  from  penetrating 
into  the  secrets  of  the  order.  An  elaborate  ritual  com- 
pleted the  machinery,  and  the  candidate  for  the  honor  of 
being  enrolled  in  the  ranks  of  the  party  had  to  pass 
through  a  series  of  questions,  and  when  the  ceremony  was 
complete  he  was  finally  charged  with  the  objects  and  pur- 
poses of  the  order. 

The  object  of  this  new  secret  party  was  to  oppose  the 
progress  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  and  to  secure 
a  longer  term  of  residence  for  foreign  immigrants  before 
giving  them  the  privilege  of  naturalization.  The  great 
watchword  was,  "Put  none  but  Americans  on  guard  to- 
night," a  saying  attributed  to  Washington.  Washing- 
ton's farewell  address  was  also  held  up  as  justifying  the 
movement,  and  especially  that  portion  where  Washington 
said:  "Against  the  insidious  wiles  of  foreign  influence,  I 
conjure  you  to  believe  me,  my  fellow-citizens,  the  jeal- 
ousy of  a  free  people  ought  to  be  constantly  awake.  It  is 
one  of  the  most  baneful  woes  of  a  republican  government." 
After  the  party  came  into  the  open  its  purposes  were  stated 
by  the  Know  Nothing  Almanac  of  I8551  to  be  "Anti- 
Romanism,  Anti-Bedinism,  Anti-Pope's  Toeism,  Anti- 
Nunneryism,  Anti-Winking  Virginism,  Anti-Jesuitism, 
and  Anti-the-Whole-Sacerdotal-Hierarchism  with  all  its 
humbugging  mummeries.  Know  Nothingism  is  for  light, 
liberty,  education  and  absolute  freedom  of  conscience,  with 
a  strong  dash  of  devotion  to  one's  native  soil." 

It  seemed  strange  that  a  party  bound  to  secrecy  and 
opposed  to  the  Catholics,  as  it  was,  should  lay  claim  to 
"light"  and  "liberty  of  conscience"  as  its  tenets.  To 
the  charge  of  secrecy  they  would  answer  that  in  all  political 
movements  secrecy  is  the  element  of  success.  The  old 
parties  were  charged  with  having  their  secret  agents  at 
1  Tisdale's  "  Know  Nothing  Almanac,"  1855,  7. 


12         History  of  Know  Nothing  Party  in  Maryland.     [156 

Washington,  and  conventions  were  said  to  be  run  by  secret 
committees.1  Furthermore  it  was  said  that  it  was  fighting 
with  Jesuits  and  priest,  an  enemy  sworn  to  secrecy,  and 
it  declared  that  "When  you  fight  the  devil,  you  have  a 
right  to  fight  him  with  fire."2 

As  to  the  question  of  liberty  of  conscience,  the  Know 
Nothings  denied  that  they  were  intolerant  towards  the 
Catholic  religion.  The  leading  Know  Nothing  speakers 
were  eager  to  deny  any  proscription,  either  of  Catholics  or 
foreigners.  Not  on  account  of  their  religious  belief  did 
they  oppose  the  Catholics,  but  on  account  of  their  political 
activity.  But  while  they  denied  that  they  warred  upon  the 
Catholics,  because  they  were  Catholics ;  yet  with  a  casuisti- 
cal ingenuity  and  sophistry  worthy  of  their  Jesuit  op- 
ponents, they  declared  that  a  Catholic  could  not  be  a  good 
American  citizen. 

The  party,  it  seems,  had  been  put  into  operation  in  the 
State  of  New  York  in  the  early  part  of  1852.  A  gentle- 
man in  that  State  had  worked  out  the  plan  as  early  as 
i849-3  I*  rapidly  extended  its  influence,  but  quietly  withal, 
and  not  until  1854  did  it  play  any  important  part  in  the 
elections.  Old  Whigs,  dissatisfied  Democrats,  and  the 
mass  of  the  discontented,  who  are  always  looking  for  some 
universal  panacea  eagerly  went  into  the  new  party.  Its 
very  secrecy  and  the  mystic  charm  of  clandestine  meetings 
also  exerted  a  great  influence  in  attracting  men  into  its 
organization.  With  this  sketch  of  its  general  principles  we 
can  enter  into  a  consideration  of  the  progress  of  the  party  in 
Maryland. 

1 "  Principles  and  Objects  of  the  American  Party,"  22. 

2  Speech  of  W.  R.  Smith,  oi  Alabama,  in  House  of  Representa- 
tives, January  12,  1855.  Cong.  Globe,  33d  Congress,  2d  Session  ; 
Appendix,  97. 

3 Whitney  :  "Defense  of  the  American  Policy,"  280. 


II.     GROWTH  OF  THE  PARTY  IN  MARYLAND. 

In  the  latter  part  of  the  year  1852,  probably  in  the  month 
of  October,  this  secret  order  first  made  its  appearance  in 
Baltimore.1  At  this  time  thirteen  persons,  symbolic  of  the 
thirteen  original  States,  met  and  were  initiated  into  the 
mysteries  of  the  order  by  a  duly  commissioned  delegate 
from  the  Council  in  New  York  State.  In  a  short  space  of 
time  the  order  spread  rapidly,  and  subordinate  Councils 
were  established  all  over  the  city  and  in  the  counties.  Five 
delegates  from  the  subordinate  Councils  constituted  the 
Superior  Council  of  the  city,  and  this  Superior  Council 
together  with  the  lodges  in  the  counties  elected  delegates 
to  the  Grand  Council.  Within  three  months  from  the  time 
the  order  started,  a  grand  lodge  had  been  established. 

The  rapid  growth  of  the  order  was  not  at  all  surprising. 
At  various  times  before  there  had  been  ebullitions  of  a 
native  sentiment,  but  they  had  subsided  almost  before  they 
had  time  to  crystallize  into  a  formidable  political  organiza- 
tion. Some  years  before  this  time,  in  the  forties,  a  party 
known  as  the  American  Republican  party,  and  having  op- 
position to  foreigners  as  its  basis,  had  made  its  appearance 
in  the  United  States.  In  1844  this  party  made  its  appear- 
ance in  Baltimore,  and  received  the  support  of  the  Clip- 
per,2 the  newspaper  which  was  afterwards  the  great  advo- 
cate of  the  Know  Nothing  party.  On  March  12,  1845, 
this  party  held  a  convention,3  and  in  the  election  of  that 

1  Whitney,  in  the  "Defense  of  the  American  Policy,"  284,  states 
that  the  first  Council  was  instituted  in  May,  1853.  This,  however,  is 
probably  a  mistake,  as  the  recording  secretary  of  the  National  Coun- 
cil, and  two  members  who  were  present  at  this  first  meeting,  state 
positively  that  it  was  held  in  the  fall  of  1852. 

*  Clipper,  November  5,  1844.  3  Ibid.,  March,  13,  1845. 

NOTE — The  references  to  newspapers  are  to  Baltimore  papers,  ex- 
cept where  otherwise  stated. 


14         History  of  Know  Nothing  Party  in  Maryland.      [158 

year  put  candidates  for  local  offices  into  the  field.  The  time, 
however,  was  not  yet  ripe  for  such  a  movement  to  make 
an  impression  in  American  politics.  The  old  parties  were 
too  strong  and  active  for  this  newcomer  to  force  itself  into 
the  field.  The  anti-foreign  sentiment  alone  was  not  enough, 
and  this  early  movement  lacked  the  opposition  to  the  Cath- 
olics which  was  characteristic  of  its  more  fortunate  suc- 
cessor. At  the  election  in  1845  it  polled  about  thirty-three 
hundred  votes,1  and  then  quietly  sank  into  oblivion. 

The  sentiment  against  the  immigrant  again  came  to  the 
surface  in  the  Constitutional  Convention  of  1850.  Here 
a  motion  was  introduced  looking  to  some  provision  "re- 
stricting from  future  foreign  immigrants  to  the  State  of 
Maryland,  the  right  of  suffrage,  until  they  shall  have  been 
residents  of  said  State  for  at  least  ten  years  after  they  shall 
have  given  notice  to  the  proper  authorities  of  their  inten- 
tion to  become  citizens  of  the  United  States."2  Again,  at 
the  municipal  election  of  1852,  the  spread  of  the  native 
sentiment  made  itself  felt.  France,  the  Whig  candidate, 
was  charged  with  having  signed  a  memorial  to  Congress 
in  favor  of  the  Native  American  movement.  He  denied 
the  charge,  and  his  denial  apparently  went  against  him  in 
the  election.3 

Such  had  been  the  forerunners  of  this  new  secret  political 
party.  Such  a  sentiment  being  latent  in  the  community, 
it  was  no  wonder  that  the  party  attained  an  exceedingly 
rapid  growth.  The  progress  of  the  order  was  manifested 
by  trie  growth  of  public  opinion  in  favor  of  its  principles. 
These  had  acquired  so  great  a  circulation  that  on  March 
15,  1853,  a  new  order,  known  as  the  United  Sons  of  Amer- 
ica, was  instituted  in  Baltimore.4  This  order  had  practi- 
cally the  same  principles  and  was  composed  to  a  large  ex- 
tent of  the  same  men,  but  it  was  distinct  from  the  Know 
Nothing  order.  At  the  same  time  it  worked  hand  and 

1  Clipper,  October  2,  1845.      2  "Proceedings  Convention,"  1850,  94. 
*  American,  October,  15,  1852.  *  Clipper,  March  15,  1853. 


159]  Growth  of  the  Party  in  Maryland.  15 

glove  with  the  secret  order  in  agitating  the  principles  com- 
mon to  the  two,  while  the  secret  order  held  the  political 
machinery. 

For  some  months  after  the  institution  of  this  new  order 
the  party  is  apparently  quiescent.  It  was  so  quiet  that  by 
July  the  Baltimore  American  thought  it  time  to  preach  its 
funeral  sermon,  saying  that  "its  structure  was  never  more 
formidable  than  a  jack-o'-lantern  *  *  *  and  in  time 
the  folks  found  out  that  the  ghost  was  composed  of  a  flimsy 
sheet  topped  by  an  illuminated  pumpkin."1  Yet  scarcely  a 
month  had  passed  when  the  movement  again  bobbed  up, 
and  this  time  with  a  mass-meeting  in  Monument  Square. 
On  August  1 8  the  first  mass-meeting  was  held  in  the 
above-mentioned  locality,  and  was  attended  by  a  great 
number  of  people.  This  meeting  was  held  under  the  aus- 
pices of  the  United  Sons  of  America,2  and  the  Know  Noth- 
ing order  was  merely  a  passive  participant.  About  the 
same  time  we  find  notices  in  newspapers  of  the  growth  of 
the  party  in  other  sections  of  the  State.3 

In  the  meantime  another  new  organization  had  come 
into  the  field,  and  gave  the  first  occasion  for  an  exhibition 
of  the  strength  of  the  Know  Nothings.  This  was  the 
movement  in  favor  of  a  "Maine  Law  Temperance"  ticket, 
which  finally  crystallized  in  the  nomination  of  candidates  for 
the  House  of  Delegates  and  for  Sheriff  of  Baltimore.4  The 
Maine  Law  ticket  for  the  Legislature  was  composed  of 
five  Whigs  and  five  Democrats. 

In  the  previous  session  of  the  Legislature  a  bill,  known 
as  the  "Kerney  School  Bill,"  had  been  introduced,  having 
for  its  object  the  allotment  of  a  certain  portion  of  the 
school  fund  to  private  or  sectarian  schools.5  The  object  of 
this  bill  was  to  enable  the  Catholic  schools  to  share  in  the 

1  American,  July  9,  1853. 

3  Sun,  American,  Clipper,  August  19,  1853. 

3  Sun,  August  23,  27,  31,  September  15  ;    Clipper,  August  27,  1853. 

4  Sun,  September  30  ;  American,  August  15. 

5  House  Journal,  1852,  606,  768;  1853,  330,  551,  563,  577. 


16         History  of  Know  Nothing  Party  in  Maryland.      [160 

school  fund,  and  accordingly  the  Know  Nothing1  party 
threw  its  weight  against  those  candidates  who  were  favor- 
able to  the  bill.  The  United  Sons  of  America  addressed 
a  circular-letter  to  the  candidates,  asking  them  whether 
they  favored  the  bill,  and  also  whether  they  were  in  "favor 
of  exempting  the  members  of  any  religious  sect  from  pay- 
ment of  their  quota  of  the  school  tax."1 

The  Democratic  candidates  to  a  man  refused  to  con- 
sider the  questions,  while  the  Temperance  candidates  an- 
nounced their  opposition  to  the  Kerney  Bill  and  were  ac- 
cordingly endorsed  by  the  Sons  of  America,  which  was 
practically  the  Know  Nothing  party  at  this  time.2  The  re- 
sult was  seen  in  the  election,  when  the  Democratic  candi- 
date for  Governor  received  a  majority  in  the  city  of  more 
than  three  thousand  over  his  Whig  opponent,  while  the 
Democratic  Legislative  ticket  was  defeated  by  a  little  less 
than  a  thousand.  The  Know  Nothing  party  did  not  enter 
into  the  question  in  the  rest  of  the  State  and  straight-out 
Whigs  and  Democrats  were  elected  from  the  counties. 
The  House  of  Delegates,  being  about  equally  divided  be- 
tween the  two  parties,  the  ten  Delegates  from  Baltimore 
Cky  held  the  balance  of  power.8 

A  little  later  the  Anti-Catholic  sentiment  was  increased 
by  the  presence  in  Baltimore  of  Bedini,  the  Papal  legate. 
In  the  early  part  of  1854  he  made  his  appearance  in  Balti- 
more, and  was  the  occasion  of  much  excitement.  On  the 
sixteenth  of  January,  a  crowd  of  men  and  boys  proceeded 
to  Monument  Square  and  burned  him  in  effigy.4  The  op- 
position to  Bedini  was  claimed  to  be  due,  not  as  much  to 
his  being  a  Catholic  as  to  his  cruelty  while  Governor  of 
Bologna,  and  his  opposition  to  the  national  movement  in 
Italy.5  However  much  may  be  ascribed  to  this  cause, 
there  is  no  doubt  that  sentiment  was  aroused  against  him 
because  he  had  come  to  adjudicate  between  an  American 

*  Sun,  October  8,  1853.  2  Sun,  American,  November  i,  2. 

3  Sun,  Novembers.  *  Sun,  American,  January  17,  1854. 

5  Sun,  January  18,  1854. 


161]  Growth  of  the  Party  in  Maryland.  17 

congregation  and  the  Catholic  clergy.  He  was  looked  upon 
as  the  intruding  representative  of  a  foreign  power  beyond 
the  sea. 

In  the  meantime  the  order  was  spreading  all  over  the 
State  and  lodges  were  reported  as  organizing  in  the  various 
counties.1  The  first  development  of  their  power  was  in 
Western  Maryland,  in  the  city  of  Hagerstown.  Here,  at 
the  municipal  election  on  April  10,  a  sensation  was  created 
by  the  election  of  the  Anti-Maine  Law  candidate  for  Mayor 
and  the  Know  Nothing  candidates  for  the  Council.2 

This  surprise  was  followed  by  a  greater  one  about  a 
month  later  in  the  city  of  Cumberland.  Here  the  Whigs 
and  Democrats  had  both  made  nominations  for  Mayor  and 
city  officers.  The  result  was  that  some  candidates  of  both 
parties  had  been  elected.  The  Know  Nothings  had  selected 
a  ticket  from  those  nominated  by  the  two  old  parties  and 
had  triumphantly  elected  every  man  on  it.3  The  strength 
of  the  order  was  thus  manifested  even  to  the  most  skepti- 
cal, and  it  looked  as  if  the  defunct  Whig  party  and  a  divided 
Democracy  were  alike  to  be  swallowed  up  in  this  new  force 
which  was  showing  so  much  strength.4 

In  Baltimore  also  the  order  was  constantly  gaining  in 
numbers  and  influence.  The  Washington  election  of  June 
5  was  the  first  open  manifestation  of  sympathy  toward  the 
new  party  in  Baltimore  since  the  election  in  the  previous 
year.  The  canvass  in  Washington  had  been  especially 
spirited,  and  much  interest  was  manifested  in  Baltimore  as 
to  the  outcome.  Crowds  gathered  around  the  newspaper 
offices  awaiting  the  results,  and  when  the  success  of  the 
Know  Nothing  candidate  was  announced  the  cheering 
indicated  that  there  were  many  sympathizers  among  the 
waiting  crowd.5  About  the  same  time  there  is  a  notice 
of  a  new  weekly  paper,  to  be  called  the  Spirit  of  '76,  whose 


lSun,  May  13,  July  3,  8,  28,  August  12;  Easton  Star,  April  18. 
*  Sun,  April  12,  1854.  3  Sun,  May  10,  1854. 

*  Ibid.     Easton  Star,  May  16,  1854. 

5  Sun,  American,  June  6,  1854. 


18         History  of  Know  Nothing  Party  in  Maryland.     [162 

great  aim  was  "to  place  the  government  of  America  in  the 
hands  of  true  Americans."1 

Meanwhile  the  Democrats  had  not  been  inactive.  Their 
City  Convention  had  met  on  July  20,  and  had  denounced 
the  Know  Nothing  party  as  "contrary  to  the  principles  of 
the  Constitution."2  As  yet  the  Know  Nothings  had  made 
no  move,  but  their  strength  was  evidently  feared,  as  the 
Democratic  meeting  on  September  12  declared  that  they 
could  carry  the  election  "in  spite  of  the  combination  of 
Whigs,  Know  Nothings  and  Temperance  men."3  Not 
until  about  two  weeks  before  the  election,  which  was  to 
occur  on  October  u  did  the  Know  Nothings  put  a  candi- 
date in  the  field.  On  September  27  the  Clipper  put  the 
name  of  Samuel  Hinks  at  the  head  of  its  editorial  column, 
and  stated  that  it  was  authorized  to  announce  him  as  the 
American  candidate  for  Mayor.  On  the  night  before  a 
secret  convention  had  been  held,  composed  of  five  dele- 
gates from  each  ward,  and  the  candidate  had  been  selected.4 
Unannounced  to  the  public,  unknown  to  the  press,  with 
no  published  account  of  the  proceedings,  no  one  possess- 
ing any  information  concerning  it,  except  the  delegates,  this 
new  party,  which  was  to  save  the  democratic  institutions 
of  America,  met  in  a  secret  convention  and  put  forth  its 
candidate. 

The  campaign  was  a  short  and  lively  one.  The  Demo- 
crats were  absolutely  at  sea  in  regard  to  the  number  of 
their  opponents.  In  order  to  watch  the  election  they  had 
recourse  to  a  trick  which  was  adopted  and  put  to  service- 
able use  by  the  Know  Nothings.  When  the  tickets  were 
printed,  three  blue  stripes  were  printed  down  the  back,  so 
that  the  observer  could  easily  see  how  a  person  voted. 
But  before  the  election  the  Know  Nothings  had  learned 
of  this  trick,  and  they  accordingly  had  their  tickets  printed 
with  a  like  stripe.  Not  until  the  middle  of  the  day  of 

1  American,  June  10.  2  Ibid.,  July  22. 

3  Sun,  American,  September  13. 

4  Sun,  American,  September  27. 


163]  Growth  of  the  Party  in  Maryland.  19 

election  did  the  Democrats  discover  the  trick,  but  it  was 
too  late  to  rectify  it.  The  Know  Nothings  elected  their 
candidate  by  over  two  thousand  majority,  and  also  a  ma- 
jority in  both  branches  of  the  City  Council.1  The  election 
was  as  fair  as  elections  were  in  those  days,  the  methods  em- 
ployed not  being  peculiar  to  any  party.  At  one  of  the 
lower  wards  the  Empire  Club  attempted  to  run  things 
in  the  interest  of  the  Democrats,  and  the  Know  Nothings 
from  up-town  sent  a  deputation  to  resist  them.  The  op- 
posing forces  met  at  Fayette  and  Exeter  Streets,  and  for 
some  time  a  lively  contest  was  waged  with  pistols,  clubs 
and  stones.2  When  it  became  evident  that  the  Know 
Nothing  candidates  had  been  elected  the  victors  paraded 
the  streets  with  fireworks  and  cannon.  At  several  points 
the  procession  was  attacked  by  its  opponents.3 

Hardly  had  the  party  come  into  power  in  Baltimore  when 
there  was  friction  between  the  Mayor  and  City  Council 
over  the  appointments.4  The  Councilmen  claimed  that 
they  were  not  consulted  in  the  selection  of  city  officials; 
that  former  political  divisions  were  not  sufficiently  re- 
garded ;5  and  that  some  of  the  nominees  were  not  members 
of  the  order.6  The  Councilmen,  however,  contented  them- 
selves with  rejecting  some  of  the  nominations  of  the  Mayor 
and  did  not  attempt  to  take  the  appointing  power  away 
from  the  Mayor,  as  they  did  in  a  recent  case  of  this  kind. 
The  majority  of  the  party  were  in  favor  of  the  Mayor7  and 
the  Councilmen  had  to  give  way. 

During  1855  the  party  continued  its  successful  course. 
Not  only  in  Hagerstown8  and  Cumberland,8  where  they 
had  been  successful  the  year  before,  were  they  again  vic- 
torious, but  also  Annapolis10  and  Williamsport11  fell  into 

1  Sun,  American,  October  12,  1854.      *  Sun,  American,  October  12. 

*  Sun,  American,  October  12  and  13. 

4  Cf.  "  Mayor  Hooper  and  the  Republican  Councilmen  in  1896." 

6  Sun,  January  i.  6  Ibid.,  American,  January  4  and  6. 

''American,  January  8.  8  American,  April  12,  1855. 

9  Sun,  May  17.  10  Ibid. ,  April  4.  n  Ibid. ,  March  9. 


20         History  of  Know  Nothing  Party  in  Maryland.      [164 

their  hands.  At  Westminster,  Carroll  County,  a  meeting  was 
called  to  form  a  party  in  opposition  to  the  Know  Nothings. 
A  series  of  resolutions  denouncing  the  Know  Nothings 
were  presented,  but  the  meeting,  amid  much  confusion,  re- 
fused to  adopt  them,  and  finally  adjourned  with  three 
cheers  for  "Sam."1 

Nor  was  it  in  Maryland  alone  that  the  party  was  making 
such  great  progress.  The  year  1854  was  an  off  year  in 
Maryland  politics,  there  being  in  that  year  only  elections 
to  local  offices.  Consequently  there  was  no  opportunity 
for  it  to  show  its  power  over  the  State  at  large.  It  was 
in  the  Northern  States  that  the  party  achieved  a  phenome- 
nal success  which  made  all  the  old  politicians  open  their 
eyes  in  wonderment.  In  Massachusetts  no  Governor  had 
been  elected  by  a  majority  of  the  people  since  the  rise  of 
the  Free  Soil  party,  but  in  this  year  the  Know  Nothings 
elected  their  candidate  for  Governor  by  a  clear  majority  of 
thirty-three  thousand.2  Gardner,  a  played-out  Whig,  had 
been  the  Know  Nothing  candidate,  and  those,  like  Cong- 
don,  the  editor  of  the  Boston  Atlas,  who  thought  the 
movement  a  "huge  joke,"3  found  out  the  day  after  the  elec- 
tion that  the  joke  was  on  the  other  side.  In  New  York, 
although  the  party  did  not  elect  its  candidate,  it  surprised 
its  opponents  by  polling  over  a  hundred  and  twenty-two 
thousand  votes  in  the  State  election.  Delaware  was  also 
carried  by  the  Know  Nothings.  In  the  other  States  the 
success  of  the  party  was  mainly  confined  to  the  local  elec- 
tions. The  Congressional  elections  resulted  in  the  re- 
turn of  seventy-five  Know  Nothing  Congressmen.4 

These  successes,  of  course,  revealed  the  strength  of  the 
party,  and  the  year  1854  saw  the  end  of  the  secret  organi- 
zation. After  the  National  Convention  of  1855  (which  will 

1  Sun,  April  6. 

2  Haynes  :   "Causes  of  Know  Nothing  Success  in  Massachusetts," 
in  American  Historical  Review  for  October,  1897,  81. 

5  Congdon  :  "  Reminiscences  of  a  Journalist,"  145. 
4  "Tribune  Almanac,  1855." 


165]  Growth  of  the  Party  in  Maryland.  21 

be  considered  in  the  next  paragraph),  the  party  gave  up 
the  "humbugging  mummeries"  of  ritual,  grips  and  pass- 
words and  adopted  the  current  political  methods.  The  con- 
vention, having  determined  that  all  the  proceedings  of  the 
party  should  be  free  and  unconcealed,  the  secret  machinery 
was  given  up,  primaries  and  nominating  conventions  were 
held  and  the  party  became  worthy  of  more  respect  as  it 
came  out  into  the  open. 

The  National  Council  met  at  Philadelphia  on  June  5. 
Almost  every  State  in  the  Union  was  represented.  This 
convention  clearly  showed  that  the  secret  machinery  was 
played  out,  as  the  proceedings  of  the  convention,  while 
ostensibly  secret,  were  being  reported  in  the  newspapers  all 
over  the  country.  This  resulted  in  the  convention  abol- 
ishing all  the  secret  machinery,  and  the  principles  of  the 
order  were  thenceforth  to  be  openly  avowed  and  discussed. 
A  platform  was  put  forth,  the  first  public  authoritative 
statement  of  the  principles  of  the  party,  which  may  be  sum- 
marized as  follows: 

1.  Acknowledgment  of  a  Supreme  Being. 

2.  Cultivation  of  an  intense  American  feeling. 

3.  Maintenance  of  the  Union. 

4.  Obedience  to  the  Constitution. 

5.  Revision  of  the  immigration  laws. 

6.  Essential  modification  of  the  naturalization  laws. 

7.  Hostility  to  corrupt  political  practices  and  "the  wild 
hunt  after  office." 

8.  Resistance  to  the  "aggressive  policy  and  the  corrupt- 
ing tendencies  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church." 

9.  Reformaton  of  the  character  of  the  National  Legis- 
lature. 

10.  Restriction  of  executive  patronage. 

11.  Education  in  the  public  schools,  and  the  use  of  the 
Bible  therein. 

12.  Existing  laws  on  slavery  to  be  maintained,  and  at 
the  same  time  denying  the  power  of  Congress  to  legislate 
upon  the  slavery  question. 


22         History  of  Know  Nothing  Party  in  Maryland.     [166 

13.  Non-intervention  in  the  internal  affairs   of  foreign 
nations. 

14.  All  principles  of  the  order  to  be  openly  avowed.1 
This  platform  was  not  adopted  without  a  struggle.     The 

Northern  members,  led  by  Henry  Wilson,  of  Massachu- 
setts, fought  hard  and  earnestly  for  the  adoption  of  an  anti- 
slavery  plank.  This,  however,  was  rejected,  and  the  dele- 
gates from  twelve  States  seceded  and  issued  an  appeal  to 
the  people  for  the  re-enactment  of  the  Missouri  Compro- 
mise. The  twelfth  section  on  slavery  was  indeed  a  peculiar 
one.  It  begins  by  holding  the  old  Whig  and  Democratic 
parties  responsible  for  the  systematic  agitation  of  the  slav- 
ery question,  and  counsels  submission  to  the  laws  on  the 
subject  as  a  "final  and  conclusive  settlement."  But  deem- 
ing it  the  highest  duty  "to  avow  their  opinions  on  a  subject 
so  important"  the  platform  went  on  to  deny  that  Congress 
had  any  power  to  legislate  upon  the  subject,  and  that  Con- 
gress "ought  not  to  legislate  upon  the  subject  of  slavery 
within  the  territory  of  the  United  States."  While  they 
deplored  the  agitation  which  was  caused  by  Congressional 
legislation,  yet  they  were  willing  to  acquiesce,  but  at  the 
same  time  they  denied  the  authority  of  Congress  to  pass 
the  laws  which  they  were  willing  to  approve.  While  a 
straddle  was  intended,  yet  it  was  on  the  whole  more  favor- 
able to  the  South,  as  the  power  of  Congress  to  legislate  on 
the  slavery  question  in  the  territories  was  denied. 

The  meeting  of  the  National  Council  revived  interest  in 
the  party,  and  on  June  20,  an  immense  mass-meeting  in 
Monument  Square,  Baltimore,  ratified  the  action  of  the 
Philadelphia  Convention.2  Numerous  ratification  meetings 
were  also  held  throughout  the  State.3  On  July  18  the 
first  State  Convention,  and  also  the  first  open  convention, 
met  in  Baltimore.  The  above  platform  of  the  Philadel- 
phia Convention  was  adopted  and  endorsed  in  toto.  The 

1  For  the  complete  platform,  see  Appendix  A. 

2  Sun,  American,  June  21. 

3  Sun,  June  30,  July  7,  9,  u,  19.     American,  July  19. 


167]  Growth  of  the  Party  in  Maryland.  23 

convention  also  nominated  candidates  for  State  offices.1 
These  nominations  were  W.  H.  Purnell  for  Comptroller, 
and  D.  J.  McPhail  for  Lottery  Commissioner.  Purnell  had 
been  a  Whig  and  McPhail  a  Democrat.2 

It  was  over  the  eighth  section  of  this  platform  that  the 
controversy  in  Maryland  was  most  pronounced.  Some  of 
the  lodges  had  even  given  up  the  Catholic  test  for  admis- 
sion, and  it  was  reported  that  an  effort  would  be  made  in 
the  State  Convention  to  repudiate  the  religious  reference  in 
the  Philadelphia  platform.3  By  many  it  was  thought  best 
not  to  have  such  an  unequivocal  denunciation  of  the  Cath- 
olics as  was  contained  in  the  article  against  "aggressive 
policy  and  corrupting  tendencies  of  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church."  An  effort  was  made  to  substitute  in  place  of  this 
clause  "that  no  person  should  be  selected  for  political 
station  (whether  of  native  or  foreign  birth)  who  recognizes 
any  allegiance  or  obligation  of  any  description  to  any  for- 
eign prince,  potentate  or  power,  or  who  refuses  to  recog- 
nize the  Federal  and  State  Constitutions  (each  within  its 
sphere)  as  paramount  to  all  other  laws  as  issues  of  political 
action."  Maryland,  it  must  be  remembered,  had  produced 
such  Catholics  as  Charles  Carroll  of  Carrollton  and  Roger 
Brooke  Taney. 

The  agitation  against  the  Catholics  had  brought  forth 
an  explicit  denial  by  the  Archbishop  and  Bishops  of  the 
province  of  Baltimore  of  any  allegiance  other  than  spiritual 
to  the  Pope.  In  a  pastoral  letter  the  above-named  Church 
authorities  in  May,  1855,  had  said:  "Respect  and  obey  the 
constituted  authorities,  for  all  power  is  from  God,  and  they 
that  resist,  resist  thie  ordinance  of  God,  and  purchase  for 
themselves  damnation.  To  the  general  and  State  govern- 
ments you  owe  allegiance  in  all  that  regards  the  civil  order ; 
the  authorities  of  the  Church  challenge  your  obedience  in 
the  things  of  salvation.  We  have  no  need  of  pressing  this 

1  Sun,  American,  Clipper,  July  19. 

2  American,  July  19.  3  American,  July  13. 


24         History  of  Know  Nothing  Party  in  Maryland.     [168 

distinction,  which  you  fully  understand  and  constantly 
observe.  You  know  that  we  have  uniformly  taught  you 
both  publicly  and  privately  to  perform  all  the  duties  of 
good  citizens,  and  that  we  have  never  exacted  of  you, 
as  we  ourselves  have  never  made,  even  to  the  highest 
ecclesiastical  authority,  any  engagements  inconsistent  with 
the  duties  we  owe  to  -the  country  and  its  laws.  On  every 
occasion  we  have  avowed  these  principles,  and  even  in  our 
communications  to  the  late  Pontiff,  we  rejected  as  a  cal- 
umny the  imputation  that  we  were  in  civil  matters  subject 
to  his  authority."1  The  party,  however,  in  its  zeal  for  Pro- 
testantism, was  not  ready  at  this  time  to  adopt  the  milder 
plank,  which  every  true  American  could  endorse,  and 
which  did  not  savor  of  the  bigotry  and  intolerance  of  the 
more  radical  pronunciamento. 

The  candidates  of  the  Know  Nothing  party  denied  any 
intolerance.  They  claimed,  and  with  justice,  that  the  Catho- 
lics had  thrown  themselves  into  the  arms  of  one  great 
political  party,2  that  they  had  endeavored  to  change  the 
Public  School  System,3  and  that  the  trustees  of  the  Church 
of  St.  Louis  at  Buffalo  had  been  excommunicated  for 
their  refusal  to  violate  the  laws  of  the  State  in  obedience 
to  the  rule  of  the  Church.4  These  facts  will  be  considered 
at  greater  length  when  the  causes  of  the  success  of  the 
party  are  considered.  At  present  we  shall  merely  con- 
sider the  progress  of  the  party. 

The  nominations  of  the  American  party  set  the  ball  roll- 
ing. About  a  month  later,  on  August  16,  1855,  the  Demo- 
cratic State  Convention  met  and  put  its  candidates  in  the 
field.  As  was  to  be  expected  it  denounced  the  Know 
Nothing  party  as  contrary  to  the  Constitution,  and  de- 
clared that  "its  precepts,  its  organization,  its  principles  and 
objects  are  unconstitutional,  anti-republican,  dangerous  to 

1 ' '  Review  of  H.  W.  Davis,  "8.     "  Pastoral  Letter, "  1 5  and  16. 
2  Address  of  the  American  Candidates  to  the  people  of  Baltimore. 
Sun,  November  3. 


169]  Growth  of  the  Party  in  Maryland.  25 

free  institutions,  and  destitute  of  sound  morals  and  true 
religion."1  Within  a  short  time,  local  and  legislative  tickets 
had  been  put  forth  in  almost  all  the  counties  of  the  State 
by  both  the  Know  Nothings  and  their  opponents.  In 
some  of  the  counties,  the  Democrats  and  Whigs  united  and 
ran  a  fusion  ticket  against  the  new  party.  This  was  the 
case  in  Montgomery,2  Anne  Arundel,3  Howard,4  Kent, 
Queen  Anne,  Caroline,5  Dorchester,6  Somerset  and  Wor- 
cester.7 The  Legislative8  and  City  Conventions9  met  in 
Baltimore  and  completed  the  Know  Nothing  nominations. 
The  Maine  Law  Temperance  Convention  also  met  on  Sep- 
tember 27,  and  a  motion  was  made  to  endorse  the  Know 
Nothings.  The  motion,  however,  was  withdrawn,  and  it 
was  determined  that  it  was  inexpedient  to  make  nomina- 
tions.10 

The  campaign  was  a  brisk  and  merry  one.  The  cry  of 
the  Know  Nothing  party  was  "to  bring  the  Constitution 
back  to  the  model  it  had  in  the  days  of  the  fathers,"  much 
as  in  recent  campaign  we  have  heard  the  cry  of  "the  money 
of  the  Constitution."  The  venal  influence  of  the  foreign 
immigrant  and  the  corrupting  policy  of  the  Catholic  Church 
were  the  two  great  themes  of  its  discourses.  The  most  in- 
decent stories  were  circulated  of  the  immoralities  of  the 
confessional  and  the  licentiousness  of  the  priests.11  The  so- 
called  "Confessions  of  a  French  Priest"  were  held  up  as 
high  proof  of  the  immorality  in  the  convents  and  nunner- 
ies.12 All  the  evils  of  the  Church  and  the  crimes  of  the 
Popes  in  the  Middle  Ages  were  again  published,18  and  it  was 
denied  that  Popery  had  changed  its  character  since  the 

1  "Proceedings  Convention  ;"  Sun,  American,  August  17. 

2  Sun,  August  ii.  3  Sun,  August  28;  American,  August  29. 
4  Sun,  September  4.             5  Easton  Star,  September  4. 

6  American,  September  14.  7  Easton  Star,  September  4. 

8September6.  9  September  12-21. 

10 'Sun,  American,  September  28. 

11 "  Priests'  Prisons  for  Women,"  28.  12 Ibid.,  24. 

13  Clipper,  February  14,  1855. 


26         History  of  Know  Nothing  Party  in  Maryland.     [170 

Middle  Ages.1  The  Pope  was  held  up  as  aiming  to  become 
supreme  head  of  the  world,  and  such  authors  as  Bellarmme, 
Augustinus  Triumphus,  Avorus,  Pelagius,  Panormita- 
mus,  Hostiensis,  Sylvester  and  Thomas  Aquinas  were 
appealed  to  in  order  to  prove  the  indictment.2  Seldom  had 
so  much  scholasticism  been  quoted  in  the  exciting  arena  of 
American  politics.  Even  the  style  of  architecture  of  the 
churches  was  appealed  to.  It  was  said  "  they  are  built  of 
solid  masonry,  gothic  style  of  architecture,  and  easily'  con- 
vertible into  forts;  and  any  one  who  has  been  in  a  country 
where  he  has  seen  them  used  for  forts  can  readily  imagine 
why  they  are  so  strongly  built  in  this  country."3 

Nor  were  the  opponents  of  the  Know  Nothings  at  all 
sparing  in  the  use  of  epithets.  The  party  was  character- 
ized as  a  secret  oath-bound,  dark-lantern  organization, 
meeting  in  the  dead  of  night  to  concoct  schemes  and  hood- 
wink their  opponents.  Then  again  it  was  charged  with 
being  descended  from  the  Hartford  Convention  and  its 
leaders  were  denounced  as  traitors.4  The  Know  Nothings 
were  denounced  as  Abolitionists  in  disguise,  on  account  of 
the  abolition  tendencies  of  the  Northern  branch  of  the 
party,  where  indeed  the  cry  of  the  order  had  by  this  time 
been  changed  from  an  Anti-Pope  to  Anti-Nebraska.5  The 
climax  of  these  characterizations  was  reached  by  a  Demo- 
cratic leader  in  Western  Maryland,  who  is  reported  to  have 
said  that  "St.  Paul  was  a  Democrat  and  all  the  Jews  were 
Know  Nothings."6 

A  special  point  of  attack  was  Henry  Winter  Davis,  who 
was  running  for  Congress  in  the  Fourth  District.  His  in- 

1 "  Popery  as  it  was  in  the  Middle  Ages,  and  as  it  is  in  the  Nine- 
teenth Century,"  25. 

3  "Sons  of  the  Sires,"  201. 

3 "Reasons  for  Abandoning  the  Old  Whig  and  Democratic  Par- 
ties," 12. 

4  American,  November  5,  1855. 

5  See  Haynes  in  American  Historical  Review,  for  October,  1897, 
79-80. 

6Wm.  T.  Hamilton.     Clipper,  November  2,  1855. 


171]  Growth  of  the  Party  in  Maryland.  27 

consistencies  and  change  of  front  did  not  fail  to  be  availed 
of  by  his  opponents.  Davis  had  been  a  Whig,  but  when 
the  new  party  came  into  the  field  he  went  into  it,  and  his 
great  ability  and  magnetic  power  soon  made  him  one  of 
its  leaders.  In  1852  he  had  been  presidential  elector  on  the 
Whig  ticket,  yet  only  three  years  later,  in  1855,  he  said  of 
the  presidential  canvass,  in  which  he  had  taken  so  active  a 
part:  "In  1852  the  rumps  of  two  broken-down  and  dis- 
credited factions  usurped  the  name  of  national  parties,  en- 
tered the  field  under  the  old  platforms  and  waged  a  scan- 
dalous contest  of  bribery  and  fraud,  which  ended  in  the 
election  of  President  Pierce."1  In  1852  he  had  also  pub- 
lished the  "War  of  Ormudz  and  Ahriman  in  the  Nineteenth 
Century,"  containing  an  account  of  the  fight  of  freedom 
against  despotism.  In  this  work  he  eulogized  the  foreign- 
born  citizen  and  delighted  to  do  him  honor,2  and  he  was 
the  pronounced  advocate  of  Kossuth  and  the  policy  of 
American  intervention  in  the  affairs  of  Europe.3  Yet  in 
1855  he  was  opposed  to  the  election  of  foreigners*  and  he 
favored  as  little  connection  with  foreign  nations  as  possi- 
ble.6 In  his  earlier  work  he  had  stated  that  "the  forms  of 
democratic  government  admit  of  no  concealment  *  *  *  the 
quarrels  are  as  open  as  the  unity,  the  peace,  and  the  love,"6 
yet  in  1853  ne  became  the  member  of  this  new  secret 
organization  in  Baltimore.  It  was  said  that  copies  of  this 
book  could  not  be  bought  in  1855,  although  they  were  plen- 
tiful before  Davis  was  nominated  for  Congress.7 

Nor  were  the  incidents  of  the  campaign  confined  to  a 
mere  bandying  of  words.  There  was  great  political  ex- 
citement, and  fights  and  personal  encounters  were  quite 
frequent.8  The  Know  Nothings  while  marching  to  their 

1  "Origin,  Principles  and  Purposes  of  the  American  Party,"  19. 

2  "Ormudz  and  Ahriman,"  344-348.  *  Ibid.,  367,  393,  428. 

4  "Origin,  Principles  and  Purposes  of  the  American  Party,"  26. 

5  Ibid.,  46. 

6  "Ormudz  and  Ahriman,"  352.       7  "Review  of  H.  W.  Davis,"  n. 
8  American,  October  6. 


28         History  of  Know  Nothing  Party  in  Maryland.     [172 

convention  had  a  brick  thrown  at  them  while  passing  the 
Lexington  Market  and  a  riot  almost  resulted.1  Sometime 
later  a  shot  was  fired  from  a  Democratic  parade  into  the 
office  of  the  Clipper,  the  leading  Know  Nothing  paper.2 
In  other  parts  of  the  State  also  much  bitterness  was  mani- 
fested, and  at  Ellicott  City,  after  the  adjournment  of  a 
Know  Nothing  mass-meeting,  the  Know  Nothings  pro- 
ceeded to  the  Union  meeting,  and  set  up  such  a  shouting 
that  it  was  impossible  for  the  meeting  to  proceed.3  The 
day  before  the  election  the  report  was  circulated  that  the 
government  at  Washington  had  sent  five  hundred  horse- 
pistols  to  the  Democratic  party.4  Davis  himself  reported 
this  at  a  mass-meeting,  and  having  one  of  them  handed  up 
to  him,  he  declared  that  it  had  the  government  mark  upon 
it.5 

The  election  passed  off  much  like  that  of  the  year  be- 
fore. There  was  considerable  fighting  and  rioting  at  vari- 
ous points  between  the  Democratic  and  the  Know  Noth- 
ing clubs,  and  the  jubilation  of  the  victors  was  kept  up 
far  into  the  night  and  even  into  the  next  day.  Indeed,  the 
rioting  on  the  day  after  the  election  was  probably  greater 
than  on  the  election  day  itself.  At  one  point  a  Know  Noth- 
ing procession  was  fired  upon  from  the  second  story  of  a 
building.  The  building  was  stormed  and  its  occupants 
were  glad  enough  to  escape.6 

1  Sun,  American,  September  22.  2  Ibid.,  October  27,  30. 

3  Sun, .  November  6,  1855.  This  was  a  favorite  trick  of  the  Know 
Nothings  all  over  the  country.  George  N.  Julian  thus  describes  this 
action  in  Indiana  :  "  If  a  meeting  was  called  to  expose  and  denounce 
its  schemes,  it  was  drowned  in  the  Know  Nothing  flood  which  at  the 
appointed  time,  completely  overwhelmed  the  helpless  minority. 
This  happened  in  my  own  county  and  town,  where  thousands  of  men 
including  many  of  my  old  Free  Soil  brethren,  assembled  as  an  organ- 
ized mob  to  suppress  the  freedom  of  speech,  and  succeeded  by  brute 
force  in  taking  possession  of  every  building  in  which  their  opponents 
could  meet  and  silencing  them  by  savage  yells."  "Political  Recol- 
lections," 142.  4  Sun,  November  7.  6  Ibid. 

6  Sun,  American,  November  9,  1855. 


173]  Growth  of  the  Party  in  Maryland.  29 

The  success  of  the  Know  Nothings  was  complete.  Bal- 
timore City  and  thirteen  out  of  twenty-one  counties  were 
ranged  in  the  Know  Nothing  column.  Most  of  the  Whig 
counties  became  Know  Nothing,  but  there  were  three  Whig 
counties  where  the  Know  Nothings  never  obtained  a  foot- 
hold. These  were  St.  Mary's,  Charles  and  Prince 
George's.1  In  Charles  and  St.  Mary's  especially  did  both 
Whigs  and  Democrats  unite  in  opposition  to  them.2  At 
the  State  Convention  of  the  Know  Nothing  party  in  1855 
these  two  counties  were  not  even  represented.  The  reason 
for  this  was  apparent.  It  was  in  St.  Mary's  County  that 
the  colony  of  Maryland  had  first  been  planted,  and  this 
and  the  adjoining  county  (Charles)  had  always  had  a  large 
Catholic  population.  These  counties  were  also  adjacent 
to  the  Virginia  line,  and  the  defeat  of  the  Know  Nothings 
in  that  State  in  June,  1855,  had  also  probably  had  its  influ- 
ence on  the  vote  in  this  section. 

Again  in  other  sections  of  the  country  were  the  Know 
Nothings  victorious.  In  Massachusetts  they  elected  their 
candidate  for  Governor  and  in  New  Hampshire,  Connecti- 
cut, Rhode  Island,  New  York  and  Kentucky  the  party  was 
again  successful. 

On  January  2,  1856,  the  new  Legislature  met  at  Annap- 
olis. The  Know  Nothings  had  an  overwhelming  majority 
in  the  House  of  Delegates,8  while  in  the  Senate*  they  were 
only  able  to  organize  with  the  help  of  some  of  the  hold- 
over Whig  Senators.  In  Massachusetts  in  the  previous 
year  the  Know  Nothing  Legislature  was  marked  by  the 
great  number  of  ministers  elected  to  it,  twenty-four  clergy- 
men being  members,  a  number  which  has  never  been 
equaled  since.6  Although  many  clergymen  had  taken  an 
active  part  in  the  Know  Nothing  movement  in  Maryland 

1  Sun,  June  5,  Julys  and  n,  August  25;  American,  August  18 
and  27.  2  Eastern  Star,  June  12. 

3  Know  Nothing  54,  Whig  i,  Democrat  9,  Union  10. 

4  Know  Nothing  8,  Whig  9,  Democrat  3,  Union  2. 

5  New  England  Magazine,  March,  1897,  7. 


30         History  of  Know  Nothing  Party  in  Maryland.     [174 

(a  Presbyterian  minister  in  Baltimore  being  especially 
prominent  in  the  agitation  in  the  preceding  campaign  and 
exceedingly  persistent  in  his  endeavors  to  suppress  con- 
vents and  nunneries),  the  Constitution  of  Maryland  forbid 
any  minister  of  the  gospel  from  holding  a  seat  in  the  Leg- 
islature.1 The  House  organized  by  electing  Wm.  H. 
Travers,  of  Baltimore,  Speaker.2  George  Wells,  a  hold- 
over Whig  Senator  from  Anne  Arundel  County,  was  elected 
President  of  the  Senate.3 

Hardly  had  the  Legislature  organized  when  its  equa- 
nimity was  rudely  disturbed  by  the  message  of  the  Gov- 
ernor. Governor  Ligon,  as  a  Democrat,  was  naturally 
much  opposed  to  this  new  party  which  was  sweeping  all 
before  it,  and  in  his  official  communication  to  the  General 
Assembly  he  took  pains  to  score  the  Know  Nothings  upon 
their  secret  organization.4  After  reviewing  the  affairs  of 
the  State  he  considers  that  he  would  "fail  to  discharge  a 
public  duty"  if  he  did  not  call  attention  to  "the  formation 
and  encouragement  of  secret  political  societies."  Con- 
tinuing, he  says :  "But  how  much  more  are  they  to  be 
deprecated,  when  those  purposes  tend  to  the  subversion  of 
the  well  and  most  dearly  cherished  principles  of  our  Gov- 
ernment, and  to  the  establishment  of  rules  for  discriminat- 
ing against  large  classes  of  citizens,  not  only  unknown  to 
the  Federal  Constitutions5  and  those  of  the  several  States, 
but  plainly  prohibited  both  by  the  letter  and  spirit  of  each 
and  all  of  them.  *  *  *  If  on  the  one  hand  we  permit 
brute  force  to  control  the  ballot-box  and  violence  to  deter 
the  quiet  and  peaceably-disposed  citizens  from  the  exer- 
cise of  his  right  of  suffrage,  or  on  the  other  hand  to  allow 
a  citizen  to  be  proscribed  on  account  of  his  religious  faith, 
we  poison  the  very  foundation  of  public  security,  our  Con- 
Constitution  1850,  Art.  Ill,  sec.  n. 
J  House  Journal,  5.  3  Senate  Journal,  4. 

4  Governor's  Message,  28,  29. 

5  An  ambiguity  of  which  his  opponents  did  not  fail  to  take  advan- 
tage. 


175]  Growth  of  the  Party  in  Maryland.  31 

stitution  becomes  a  solemn  mockery  and  the  Republic  a 
cheat  and  a  delusion  whose  very  essence  is  despotism."1 

Mr.  Kennedy,  of  Baltimore,  at  once  offered  a  resolution 
that  "so  much  of  the  Governor's  message  as  related  to 
secret  political  societies  be  referred  to  a  select  committee 
of  five,"  which  should  inquire  as  to  the  existence,  import 
and  character  of  such  secret  societies,  and  also  to  ascer- 
tain the  kind  of  secrets  held  by  such  societies.2  The  com- 
mittee was  also  instructed  to  request  the  Governor  to  com- 
municate to  them  any  information  which  he  might  possess, 
and  also  have  power  to  summon  witnesses.  A  substitute 
to  refer  the  entire  message  to  a  select  committee  of  five  with 
instructions  to  refer  all  subjects  in  it  to  the  appropriate 
committee  was  adopted,3  but  on  the  following  day  a  re- 
consideration was  carried,4  and  finally,  on  January  10,  the 
original  resolution  was  adopted  by  the  House.5  The  com- 
mittee as  appointed  consisted  of  Messrs.  Kennedy,  Hall, 
Goldsborough,  Merrick  and  Smith.6 

It  soon  became  evident  that  the  investigation  was  pro- 
ceeding along  the  line  of  most  legislative  investigations, 
and  a  conclusion  reached  favorable  to  the  dominant  party. 
On  January  31,  Mr.  Merrick  submitted  an  order  that  the 
cleric  of  the  House  be  directed  to  issue  a  summons  at  the 
instance  of  any  two  members  of  the  committee  for  such 
witnesses  as  they  might  designate.7  This,  however,  the 
House  refused  to  do  by  a  strict  party  vote  of  twelve  to 
forty-seven.8 

It  seems  that  on  January  19,  four  days  after  the  com- 
mittee was  appointed,  and  the  committee  not  yet  having 
been  convened  or  organized,  the  minority  addressed  a  note 
to  the  chairman  of  the  committee,  furnishing  him  with  a 
list  of  persons  who  could  give  testimony  relative  to  the 

i 

1  Governor's  Message,  29.  *  House  Journal,  26. 

*  House  Journal,  27.  *  Ibid.,  29. 

5 Ibid.,  46.  6Idid.,59. 

''Ibid.,  170.  8  Ibid.,  171. 


32        History  of  Know  Nothing  Party  in  Maryland.      [176 

investigation.1  No  notice  was  taken  of  this  note,  except 
a  mere  acknowledgment  at  the  first  meeting  of  the  com- 
mittee, which  was  held  on  January  3i.2  At  the  meeting 
on  February  8,  the  committee  by  a  party  vote  of  two  to 
three  refused  to  examine  witnesses  or  send  for  the  papers.3 
The  committee  thus  refusing  to  examine  witnesses  the 
minority  carried  on  an  investigation  of  its  own,  and  on 
March  3  the  majority  and  minority  both  presented  their 
reports  to  the  House.4 

Trie  majority  commented  rather  sarcastically  upon  the 
Governor's  fear  of  secret  political  societies,  stating  that  evi- 
dently the  secrets  which  disquieted  the  Governor  were  the 
political  doctrines  avowed  in  the  platform  of  the  American 
party  which  had  been  published  in  a  thousand  newspapers,5 
and  which  were  still  undergoing  republication.  The  com- 
mittee, the  report  stated,  found  no  use  for  its  power  to 
send  for  witnesses  and  papers  and  the  House  was  already 
possessed  of  the  most  authentic  information.6  The  report 
was  partly  a  justification  of  the  Know  Nothing  party  and 
partly  an  attack  upon  the  Governor.  It  concluded  as  fol- 
lows :  "To  call  it  a  breach  of  privilege,  might  perhaps  de- 
scribe it  as  the  greater  number  of  judicious  and  impartial 
citizens  of  the  State  would  think  most  appropriate.  To  re- 
gret it  as  an  unfortunate  exhibition  of  ill-timed  and  unde- 
served discourtesy,  is  the  milder,  and  on  that  account  the 
preferable  judgment  of  the  committee  upon  an  act  of  official 
intercourse  which  for  many  reasons  touching  the  dignity 
and  harmony  of  the  State  Government,  it  is  to  be  hoped  may 
never  hereafter  be  used  as  a  precedent."7 

The  minority,  as  was  to  be  expected,  took  an  opposite 
course,  affirming  the  existence  of  the  order,8  which  could 
hardly  be  contradicted,  and  denying  any  religious  agitation 
before  the  Know  Nothings  came  on  the  scene.9  They  also 

1  Minority  Report,  6.  *  Ibid.  *  Ibid. ,  9. 

4  House  Journal,  622.  8  Majority  Report,  8. 

6 Majority  Report,  9.  ''Ibid.,  18. 

8 Minority  Report,  13.  9 Ibid.,  24. 


177]  Growth  of  the  Party  in  Maryland.  33 

gave  what  purported  to  be  the  ritual  and  pass-words  of  the 
order,  together  with  the  oaths  and  obligations.1  They  did 
not  recommend  any  legislative  action  but  left  the  subject  to 
the  "known  patrotism,  intelligence  and  reflection  of  the  peo- 
ple of  this  State  and  the  Union,  whose  sober  second  thought, 
past  experience  teaches,  is  not  likely  to  fail  in  applying  to 
all  specious  and  spurious  political  agitations,  or  morbid 
political  excitements,  the  best  of  all  correctives — their  cen- 
sure and  rebuke."2 

The  session  had  not  progressed  very  far  when  it  became 
evident  that  the  majority  of  the  members  cared  more  for 
spoils  than  they  did  for  the  principles  of  the  party.  A 
great  deal  of  agitation  had  been  carried  on  in  regard 
to  convents,  and  numerous  petitions  were  presented  to  the 
Legislature  praying  for  the  protection  of  persons  confined 
in  convents  and  nunneries.3  A  law  which  was  presented 
proposed  to  give  the  Orphans'  Court  jurisdiction  over  the 
property  of  every  inmate  of  such  an  institution,  and  pro- 
vided that  each  inmate  should  appear  in  court  twice  a  year 
and  state  whether  she  had  any  cause  of  complaint.  Vari- 
ous other  provisions  for  publicity  were  also  inserted.* 
These  petitions  were  all  referred  to  a  select  committee, 
which  consisted  of  three  of  the  majority  and  two  of  the 
minority,6  and  on  March  4  this  committee  brought  in  its 
report.6 

To  the  surprise  of  all  the  report  was  unanimous.  The 
committee  did  not  feel  called  upon  to  inquire  into  the  pro- 
priety of  persons  entering  such  establishments,  and  stated 
that  the  charge  that  persons  are  unlawfully  confined  was 
merely  a  general  one,  and  no  particular  case  had  been 
cited.  Even  if  such  were  the  case,  however,  the  committee 
thought  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  offered  ample  protec- 
tion to  all  citizens  of  the  State,  and  if  persons  were  unlaw- 

1  Minority  Report,  14,  et  seq,  *  Ibid.,  44. 

3  House  Journal,  passim. 

*A.  B.  Cross  :  "Young  Won.ta  ui  Convents." 
8  House  Journal,  298.  6  Ibid. ,  641 . 

3 


34         History  of  Know  Nothing  Party  in  Maryland.      [178 

fully  detained,  it  was  not  because  the  law  did  not  afford 
ample  protection,  but  because  its  benefits  had  not  been 
availed  of.  In  the  opinion  of  the  committee  no  further 
legislation  was  necessary.1  On  the  last  night  of  the  ses- 
sion a  member  from  Baltimore  moved  a  substitute  for  the 
report  of  the  committee.  In  the  rush  of  the  closing  session, 
however,  his  motion  was  lost,  and  this  was  the  end  of  the 
agitation.2 

In  the  Senate  some  few  petitions  relative  to  the  same 
subject  were  presented,  but  they  were  all  laid  on  the  table,3 
and  not  taken  up  for  further  consideration.  The  other  pet 
doctrines  of  the  party  shared  no  better  fate.  Petitions  to 
change  the  naturalization  laws  were  referred  to  the  Com- 
mittee on  Judiciary,4  from  which  they  never  emerged,  and 
a  joint  resolution  offered  in  the  House5  to  request  the  rep- 
resentatives in  Congress  to  use  their  endeavors  to  modify 
the  naturalization  laws  was  never  acted  upon.  On  the  last 
day  of  the  session  the  author  of  the  resolutions  moved  to 
call  them  up,  but  the  House  refused.8  Petitions  to  equal- 
ize taxation  by  removing  the  exemptions  of  churches  and 
literary  institutions  were  likewise  lost  in  the  slough  of 
legislative  business.7 

About  the  only  thing  of  importance  done  by  the  Legis- 
lature was  the  election  of  a  United  States  Senator  to  suc- 
ceed Senator  Pratt.  Senator  Pratt's  term  did  not  expire 
until  March  4,  1857,  and  the  Democratic  members  did  not 
want  to  proceed  to  an  election  as  there  was  no  vacancy.8 
The  Democrats  proposed  to  postpone  an  election  until 
there  was  a  vacancy.9  This  would  give  the  Governor  a 
chance  to  appoint  until  the  next  meeting  of  the  Legislature 
and  there  were  hopes  that  the  next  Legislature  would  be 
Democratic.  The  Know  Nothings,  however,  refused  to 

1  House  Journal,  641.  2  American,  March  12,  1856. 

3  Senate  Journal,  246,  336.  4  House  Journal,  298. 

5  Ibid.,  483.  6  Ibid.,  846. 

1  Senate  Journal,  91  ft.  8  Senate  Journal,  135.      9  Ibid. 


179]  Grozvth  of  the  Party  in  Maryland.  35 

fall  into  the  trap,  and  on  February  14,  Anthony  Kennedy, 
a  brother  of  John  Pendleton  Kennedy,  was  elected  Sena- 
tor.1 The  point  was  raised  that  he  was  ineligible  as  he 
was  a  member  of  the  House  which  elected  him,  but  on  the 
last  day  of  the  session  he  resigned  his  seat.2  It  was  rumor- 
ed that  the  Governor  would  refuse  him  his  commission 
on  the  above-named  ground,3  but  on  April  18,  the  com- 
mission was  finally  issued. 

The  success  of  the  Know  Nothing  party  in  1854  and  1855 
brought  it  into  undue  prominence  in  national  politics,  and 
it  was  determined  that  a  presidential  ticket  should  be  put  in 
the  field  in  the  contest  of  1856.  In  this  year  the  Know 
Nothings  were  the  first  in  the  field.  Their  National  Conven- 
tion met  at  Philadelphia,  on  Washington's  Birthday,  and 
nominated  ex-President  Millard  Fillmore,  of  New  York, 
for  President,  and  Andrew  Jackson  Donelson,  of  Tennessee, 
for  Vice-President.  While  denouncing  the  slavery  agitation 
yet  they  had  nothing  to  offer  to  quell  it.  The  party  again 
straddled  on  the  slavery  question.  Slavery  itself  was  not 
mentioned  except  by  implication.  The  repeal  of  the  Missouri 
Compromise  was  condemned,  but  the  convention  at  the  same 
time  refused  to  endorse  the  right  of  Congress  to  re-establish 
the  Missouri  Compromise  line.4  Slavery  was  not  men- 
tioned; but  there  was  vague  talk  about  the  "cultivation  of 
harmony  and  fraternal  good-will  *  *  *  and  to  this  end, 
non-interference  by  Congress  with  questions  appertaining  to 
the  individual  States  and  non-intervention  by  each  State 
with  the  affairs  of  any  other  State."6  It  denounced  the  ad- 
ministration for  "its  vacillating  course  on  the  Kansas- 
Nebraska  question,"  but  gave  no  inkling  as  to  what  would  be 
the  proper  course  to  pursue.  An  Indiana  delegate,  Sheets, 
stated  the  contents  of  the  platform  truly,  when  in  accepting 
it  he  said  "if  there  was  anything  in  it,  it  was  so  covered  up 

1  House  Journal,  327-29.         z  House  Journal,  840. 

3  American,  February  25.       4  Johnston  :  "American  Politics,"  175. 

5  For  entire  platform,  see  Appendix  B. 


36         History  of  Know  Nothing  Party  in  Maryland.     [180 

with  verbiage  that  a  President  would  be  elected  before  the 
people  would  find  out  what  it  was  all  about."1 

The  Democratic  National  Convention  met  in  Cincinnati 
on  the  second  of  June  and  nominated  James  Buchanan  and 
John  C.  Breckenbridge.2  On  the  seventeenth  of  the  same 
month  the  first  Republican  National  Convention  met  in 
Philadelphia  and  nominated  John  C.  Fremont  and  William 
L.  Dayton.3  The  City,*  State,5  and  National8  Conventions 
of  the  Old  Line  Whigs  met  in  Baltimore,  and  endorsed  the 
nominations  (but  not  the  platform)  of  the  Know  Nothing 
party.7  The  limits  of  this  monograph  do  not  admit  of  a 
consideration  of  this  great  national  contest,  but  some  of  its 
principles  will  be  discussed  in  the  next  chapter  on  the  causes 
of  the  success  of  the  Know  Nothings  in  Maryland.8  We 
must  turn  away  from  the  broad  vision  of  national  affairs 
and  confine  our  attention  to  the  more  restricted  field  of  local 
and  State  politics 

The  Maryland  campaign  was  waged  vigorously,  but 
the  chief  interest  was  centered  in  Baltimore.  Here  the 
presidential  canvass  was  carried  on  concurrently  with  the 
local  campaign  for  the  Mayoralty,  and  for  members  of  the 
City  Council.  The  candidates  for  the  former  office  had 
both  been  railroad  presidents,  and  charges  were  made 
against  each  in  relation  to  the  strikes  in  order  to  get  the 
workingmen's  vote.9  The  Know  Nothing  nominee  was 
Thomas  Swann,10  who  had  been  president  of  the  Baltimore 
and  Ohio  Railroad,  and  his  opponent  was  Robert  Clinton 

1  "Von  Hoist, "  V,  259. 

2  James  Ford  Rhodes  :  "History  of  the  United  States  from  Compro- 
mise of  1850,"  II,  171.  *Ibid.,  183. 

4 June  30.  5July  10.  6  September  17  and  18. 

7  Sun,  American,  September  18  and  19. 

8  An  admirable  treatment  of  this  campaign  and  the  entire  period  in 
all  its  aspects  is  given  by  Mr.  James  Ford  Rhodes  in  the  second 
volume  of  his  "  History  of  the  United  States  from  the  Compromise 
of  1850."    The  fifth  volume  of  Von  Hoist  also  treats  it  at  great 
length.  9  Sun,  October  7,  1856. 

10  Sun,  American,  September  23,  1856. 


181]  Growth  of  the  Party  in  Maryland.  37 

Wright,1  an  ex-president  of  the  Baltimore  and  Susque- 
hanna,  now  the  Northern  Central  Railroad. 

If  the  campaign  of  the  preceding  year  had  been  exciting 
and  disorderly,  this  one  was  doubly  so.  Fighting  and 
rioting  seemed  to  be  the  order  of  the  day.  On  September 
u,  the  newly  organized  Republican  party  attempted  to  hold 
a  meeting  in  Baltimore.2  Only  about  thirty  or  forty  persons 
were  present,  while  a  mob  of  about  two  thousand  howled 
outside  of  the  hall  and  finally  broke  up  the  meeting.3  The 
same  week  was  also  characterized  by  three  other  riots  of  a 
more  or  less  serious  character.4  A  favorite  method  was 
for  the  clubs  to  cut  down  the  flag  poles  which  had  been 
raised  by  the  opposing  party.  A  few  days  before  the 
election  the  Democrats  tore  down  a  Know  Nothing  ban- 
ner, and  the  usual  riot  resulted.  The  Democrats  took 
refuge  in  a  house  on  Marsh  Market  Space,  which  they  de- 
fended with  a  swivel  placed  in  the  doorway,  while  their  an- 
tagonists showered  bricks  upon  it.5 

The  municipal  election  occurred!  first,  on  October  8. 
The  disorder  during  the  campaign  had  presaged  a  riotous 
and  exciting  election,  and  the  events  of  the  day  did  not 
disappoint  these  anticipations.  Besides  the  usual  pushing 
and  crowding  with  consequent  fighting  at  each  polling 
place  there  were  two  riots  of  considerable  proportion.  In 
the  Eighth  Ward  the  American  ticket  holders  were  driven 
off,  and  their  uptown  friends  coming  to  help  them,  the 
opposing  forces  met  at  the  corner  of  Monument  and  Cal- 
vert  Streets.6  Up  Monument  Street  toward  the  Washing- 
ton Monument  raged  the  conflict,  the  rioters  firing  from 
behind  steps  and  tree  boxes.  The  Lexington  Market  was 
also  the  scene  of  a  desperate  encounter.  Here  the  Know 
Nothing  Clubs,  known  as  the  Rip  Raps  and  the  Plug  Uglies, 
were  ranged  against  the  New  Market  Fire  Company,  and 

1  Sun,  American,  September  23,  1856. 

2 Ibid.,  September  12, 1856.        *Ibid.        *Sun,  September  16,  1856. 

5  American,  October  6,  1856.  6  Sun,  American,  October  9. 


38         History  of  Know  Nothing  Party  in  Maryland.     [182 

for  over  two  hours  the  partisans  fought  in  and  out  of  the 
Market  House.1  As  a  result  four  persons  were  killed  and 
many  wounded. 

The  Know  Nothing  candidate  for  Mayor  was  elected  by 
about  fifteen  hundred  majority,  and  the  Know  Nothings 
also  elected  a  majority  of  the  members  of  the  City  Council.2 
During  the  night  the  city  was  in  uproar,  and  even  during  the 
next  day  the  disorder  continued.  In  the  Eighth  Ward  large 
parties  of  men  armed  with  muskets  congregated  on  the  street 
corners,  awaiting  the  expected  attack  of  the  Know  Nothings 
of  the  upper  wards.3 

The  following  from  the  diary  of  Dr.  L.  H.  Steiner  will 
give  an  idea  of  the  condition  of  affairs  at  this  time : 

October  8.  "This  has  been  one  of  the  most  disgraceful 
days  for  Baltimore.  From  early  in  the  morning  until  very 
late  at  night,  both  parties  have  been  drawn  in  deadly  array 
against  each  other,  and  Plug  Uglies  and  Rip  Raps  and 
Eighth  Ward  Blackguards  have  endeavored  to  see  which 
could  be  vilest  and  most  inhuman.  The  so-called  Ameri- 
can party  seems  to  have  the  most  villainous  material  in  its 
composition,  while  the  other  side  has  never  been  deficient 
in  that  article.  A  number  of  men  have  been  killed  to-day 
and  over  fifty  wounded,  more  or  less  dangerously.  At 
some  of  the  polls  only  such  as  were  of  the  party  predomi- 
nating at  the  polls  were  allowed  to  vote.  Affairs  going  on 
in  this  way  and  the  elective  franchise  will  become  a  hum- 
bug. Swann  elected  Mayor  by  a  large  majority."4 

October  9.  "The  day  is  bright  and  beautiful,  but  the 
evil  passions  of  men  seem  not  yet  to  have  died  out. 
Fights  and  wounds  of  various  kinds  were  the  order  of  the 
day,  and  on  a  small  scale  some  of  the  scenes  of  yesterday 
were  re-enacted."5 


1  Sun,  American,  October  9. 

2  First  Branch,  Know  Nothing   13,  Democrat  7;  Second   Branch, 
Know  Nothing  5,  Democrat  5.  3  American,  October  10. 

4B.  C.  "Steiner:  Citizenship  and  Suffrage  in  Maryland,"  39.      ^Ibid. 


183]  Growth  of  the  Party  in  Maryland.  39 

During  the  interval  between  this  and  the  presidential 
election  an  effort  was  made  to  prevent  a  recurrence  of  such 
riotous  scenes.  A  committee  of  citizens  waited  upon  the 
Mayor  and  requested  him  to  call  the  City  Council  in  extra 
session  in  order  to  make  some  special  preparations  against 
disorder.1  This  the  Mayor  refused  to  do,  stating  that  he 
did  not  fear  a  recurrence  of  the  disorder,  and  adding  that 
he  had  made  such  arrangement  as  would  insure  the  peace 
of  the  city.2  What  these  arrangements  were  the  Mayor 
did  not  state  at  the  time,  but  on  October  31  he  ordered  the 
whole  Light  Division  of  Infantry  to  be  under  arms  and 
equipped  at  their  armories  at  eight  o'clock  of  the  day  of 
election.3  The  order  was  afterwards  countermanded  but 
the  troops  were  ordered  to  keep  themselves  in  readiness.4 
The  Governor  also  came  to  Baltimore  just  before  the  elec- 
tion and  proffered  his  services  to  assist  in  maintaining 
order.  The  Mayor  coolly  repulsed  his  overtures,  and  the 
election  being  too  near  at  hand  to  accomplish  anything, 
the  Governor  was  compelled  to  retire.5 

The  events  of  the  day  proved  that  the  fears  were  not 
ill  founded.  Fighting  and  rioting  occurred  in  various 
parts  of  the  city,  but  the  most  serious  affair  was  in  and 
around  Belair  Market.  The  fighting  here  began  about 
three  o'clock  and  continued  desperately  until  dark.  The 
Know  Nothings  brought  with  them  a  small  cannon  mount- 
ed on  wheels,  which  was  loaded  with  all  kinds  of  missiles. 
The  Democrats,  however,  overpowered  them  and  got  pos- 
session of  the  cannon,  and  the  high  constable  and  twenty 
policemen  were  not  able  to  prevent  the  rioters  from  carrying 
it  off.6  As  a  result  of  this  fighting  we  find  a  list  of  ten  killed 
and  over  two  hundred  and  fifty  wounded,  making  a  total  of 
fourteen  killed  in  the  two  elections.  We  have  the  following 
from  Dr.  Steiner's  diary : 

lSun,  American,  October  27.  *  Ibid.  3  Sun,  November  i. 

4 Sun,  Novembers.  5 Governor's  Message,  1858,  21. 

6  Sun,  American,  Nov.  5. 


40        History  of  Know  Nothing  Party  in  Maryland.      [184 

• 

November  4.  "The  usual  amount  of  rioting  made  its 
appearance  during  the  day  and  after  the  plan  of  the  last 
election  day.  Wounding,  maiming  and  killing  were  not 
infrequent.  When  will  the  executive  of  the  city  be  able  to 
manage  its  internal  affairs?"1 

The  result  of  the  election  was  the  complete  success  of 
the  Know  Nothings  in  the  State.  They  carried  the  city 
of  Baltimore  by  over  seven  thousand  majority  and  the 
State  by  over  eight  thousand.  The  party  alignment  in 
the  various  counties  was  practically  the  same  as  that  of 
the  preceding  year.  Only  in  Maryland,  however,  was  the 
party  successful.  The  straddle  over  the  slavery  question 
had  been  a  failure.  It  was  a  cry  of  peace,  peace,  where 
there  was  no  peace.  The  slave  States  went  solidly  for 
Buchanan  and  in  addition  he  carried  Pennsylvania,  New 
Jersey,  Indiana,  Illinois  and  California,  giving  him  174 
electoral  votes.  Fremont  received  only  114.  In  the  State 
elections  in  Massachusetts,  Rhode  Island  and  New  Hamp- 
shire the  Know  Nothings  were  nominally  victorious,  but 
their  candidates  were  really  Republicans  and  in  the  na- 
tional contest  these  States  were  all  carried  by  Fremont,  the 
Republican  candidate.  The  national  aspirations  of  the 
Know  Nothings  had  vanished  into  thin  air.  In  the  North 
where  they  had  shown  their  greatest  strength,  they  had 
served  as  a  bridge  between  the  old  Whig  party  and  the  Re- 
publican party.  In  the  South  the  party  still  existed  to  a 
slight  extent  in  a  desultory  way  in  local  affairs  but  it  never 
carried  another  election,  except  in  the  State  of  Maryland. 

We  have  seen  that  when  the  Know  Nothings  attempted 
to  "rough"  the  elections  the  Democrats  met  them  in  the 
same  manner,  and  in  many  cases  the  Democrats  were 
the  aggressors.  Although  the  disorder  and  violence  in- 
creased to  a  great  extent  during  the  Know  Nothing  days, 
the  Know  Nothings  were  not  the  originators  of  this 
disorder.  In  the  Constitutional  Convention  of  1850  we 

^teiner,  39. 


185]  Growth  of  the  Party  in  Maryland.  41 

find  numerous  complaints  against  the  rowdies  in  the  city  of 
Baltimore,  who  went  from  poll  to  poll  committing  acts  of 
violence  and  interfering  with  the  elections.1  In  the 
same  year  we  find  the  practice  of  cooping  voters  in  full 
sway  and  the  Mayor2  of  the  city  only  escaped  being  cooped 
by  the  swiftness  of  his  horse.3  In  the  campaign  of  that  year 
a  gang  of  rowdies,  known  as  the  "Reubenites,"  were 
especially  prominent  in  creating  street  fights.4  Not  only 
were  fights  between  rival  factions  frequent,  but  crime  and 
rowdyism  of  all  kinds  were  so  prevalent  that  the  news- 
papers complained  that  it  was  unsafe  for  peaceable  citizens 
to  walk  the  streets  at  night.5 

The  papers  of  the  time  are  full  of  reports  of  the  preva- 
lent disorder,  and  in  1852  when  the  Know  Nothing  order 
was  just  beginning  its  secret  operations  we  hear  frequent 
complaints  against  the  lawlessness  then  prevalent  in  the 
city.6  Holidays  and  Sundays  especially  were  the  days  on 
which  disorder  was  most  common.  If  one  of  these  passed 
without  disorder  it  was  the  subject  of  congratulation  for 
the  newspapers  on  the  next  day.  The  disorders  became  so 
frequent  that  Mr.  George  William  Brown  took  occasion  to 
make  it  the  subject  of  an  address  at  the  Maryland  Institute 
on  March  n,  1853.  After  commenting  upon  the  increasing 
lawlessness,  the  speaker  read  from  a  newspaper7  the  record 
of  the  happenings  in  the  city  on  the  previous  Thanksgiving 
Day.  After  enumerating  the  general  disorder  he  tells  of 
two  attempts  of  highway  robbery  upon  respectable  citizens, 
followed  by  "a  case  of  incendiarism  of  an  outhouse,  the 
flames  of  which  communicated  to  a  dwelling  on  Saratoga 
Street,  but  the  event  is  passed  over  without  much  notice, 
as  if  it  were  an  ordinary  occurrence,  as  in  fact  it  really  was. 
And  then  we  have  an  account  of  two  riots,  one  on  Thanks- 

1Steiner,  36.     "  Debates — Convention  1850,"  32,  36,  64. 

2  Elijah  Stansbury.  3  Clipper,  October  8,  1850. 

4 Ibid.,  October  10.  5 Ibid.,  September  n,  October  24,  1850. 

6  Editorials  in  American,  November  n,  17,  December  i,  17,  1852. 

''Sun,  November  27,  1852. 


42         History  of  Know  Nothing  Party  in  Maryland.      [186 

giving  night  and  the  other  on  the  afternoon  of  the  previous 
day.  Persons  connected  with  different  fire  companies  were 
the  combatants.  Pitched  battles  were  fought,  muskets, 
pistols  and  other  dangerous  weapons  used.  Various  per- 
sons were  injured,  but  most  of  them  were  carried  from  the 
ground  before  their  names  were  ascertained."1 

It  was  essentially  an  age  of  disorder.  In  the  light  of 
subsequent  events  this  period  seemed,  as  John  Quincy 
Adams  said  of  the  struggle  over  the  admission  of  Missouri, 
"A  mere  preamble — a  title  page  to  a  great  tragic  volume."2 
Not  only  men,  but  almost  every  boy,  carried  a  pistol,  and 
did  not  hesitate  to  use  it.3  Drunkenness  and  debauchery 
were  also  common.4  But  probably  the  most  frequent 
cause  of  disorder  were  the  volunteer  fire  companies.  The 
rivalry  between  the  various  companies  was  intense,  and 
hardly  a  fire  occurred  but  what  there  was  a  free  fight  be- 
tween the  members  and  adherents  of  the  various  companies. 
Besides  the  natural  rivalry  between  the  companies,  the 
engine  houses  were  also  the  center  of  political  organiza- 
tion,5 and  this  helped  to  increase  the  disorder.  Buildings 
were  frequently  set  on  fire  merely  for  the  purpose  of  bring- 
ing out  the  companies  and  the  resulting  fight.6 

One  cause  of  the  disorder  was  the  extremely  loose  or- 
ganization of  the  police  department.  Prior  to  1857,  the 
force  consisted  of  one  day  policeman  in  each  ward  and  the 
night  watchmen.7  The  officers  were  not  uniformed,  with 
very  little  discipline,  and  with  no  facilities  for  ferreting  out 
crime.  The  police  were  often  chosen  for  political  reasons 
and  taken  from  the  very  roughs  whom  it  was  their  duty  to 


1  American,  March  18,  1853.  2  Diary,  IV,  502. 

3  American,  September  27,  1856.     A  deputation  of  boys  visits  the 
Mayor  and  ask  to  have  their  fire-arms  restored,  which  the  police  had 
taken  away  from  them. 

4  Mayor's  Message,  1858.  5Sun,  September  23,  1857. 

6  In  1858  of  255  fires,  130  were  of  incendiary  origin.     Mayor's  Mes- 
sage, 1859. 
7Folsom  :  "Our  Police,"  203  ft. 


187]  Growth  of  the  Party  in  Maryland.  43 

subdue.  In  1850  police  officers  were  even  reported  to  be 
engaged  in  cooping,  and  one  is  said  to  have  been  hurt  while 
standing  guard  over  one  of  these  coops.1 

With  such  a  general  state  of  lawlessness,  and  such  a  po- 
lice organization,  it  is  little  to  be  wondered  at  that  election 
day  was  the  occasion  of  disorder  and  bloodshed.  Add  to 
this  the  fact  that  there  was  only  one  polling  place  in  each 
ward,  and  the  resulting  crowding  and  pushing  easily  de- 
velops into  more  extended  disorder.  The  maintenance  of  a 
challenger  at  the  window  was  acknowledged  to  have  been  a 
question  of  muscle.2  The  lack  of  any  registration  of  voters 
gave  an  incentive  to  fraud,  and  it  was  generally  admitted  as 
early  as  i85o.3  The  voter  merely  presented  himself  before 
the  judges,  and  proved  his  right  to  vote  as  best  he  could. 

I  have  given  these  facts  at  some  length  to  show  that  the 
Know  Nothing  party  was  not  the  originator  of  such  meth- 
ods at  elections.  Indeed,  not  long  after  the  party  started, 
the  originators  were  swept  aside  and  the  party  was  in  the 
control  of  those  desiring  offices.  These  men  helped  to  sup- 
port the  clubs,  and  many  of  the  old  members  raised  their 
voice  in  protest  against  such  violent  measures. 

These  clubs  were  also  characteristic  of  the  politics  of  the 
time,  and  were  peculiar  to  neither  party.  They  were  mod- 
eled after  the  Empire  Club  of  New  York,  the  great  Demo- 
cratic organization.  The  names  of  these  clubs  in  them- 
selves are  valuable  as  reflecting  the  character  of  the  politics 
of  the  day.  Among  the  American  clubs  were  the  Black 
Snakes,  the  Tigers,  the  Rough  Skins,  the  Red  Necks,  the 
Thunderbolts,  the  Gladiators,  the  Ranters,  the  Eubolts, 
the  Little  Fellows,  the  Ashland  Club  (of  which  I.  Freeman 
Rasin,  the  late  Democratic  boss  of  Baltimore,  was  sec- 
retary), the  Rip  Raps,  the  Screw  Boats,  the  Stay  Lates,  the 

1  Clipper,  October  i,  1850.     Edgar  Allan  Poe,  the  brilliant  Southern 
poet,  died  after  being  shut  up  in  one  of  these  coops  on  October  3, 
1849.    See  Woodberry:  "  Life  of  E.  A.  Poe,"  p.  342. 

2  "Maryland  Contested  Election,  808." 

3Steiner,  37.     "  Debates — Convention  1850,"  58,  62. 


44        History  of  Know  Nothing  Party  in  Maryland.     [188 

Hard  Times,  the  Dips,  the  Plug  Uglies,  and  the  Blood 
Tubs.  The  latter  acquired  their  name  from  the  fact  that 
at  one  of  the  elections  a  tub  of  blood  was  brought  from  a 
nearby  slaughter  house,  and  this  was  applied  very  freely 
to  the  persons  of  foreign  voters  in  order  to  frighten  the 
others.1  The  Democratic  clubs  were  not  far  behind  in  the 
matter  of  euphonious  names,  for  among  them  were  num- 
bered the  Bloody  Eights,  the  Double  Pumps,  the  Cali- 
thumpians,  the  Ferry  Road  Hunters,  the  Gumballs,  the 
Peelers,  the  Pluckers,  the  Shad  Hoes,  the  Bloats,  and  the 
Butt  Enders. 

Nor  was  Baltimore  alone  in  such  a  troubled  experience, 
as  every  city  of  any  size  in  the  country  was  going  through 
an  era  of  disorder  and  riot.  The  newspapers  and  maga- 
zines are  full  of  accounts  of  riots  and  outrages.  The  fol- 
lowing extract  will  give  an  idea  of  life  in  American  cities: 
"What  Dante  says  of  the  Tuscan  City  is,  in  a  ten-fold 
degree,  true  of  our  great  commercial  metropolis — heart, 
soul  and  center  as  it  is  of  the  life  and  enterprise  of  the  Re- 
public. Its  growth  outstrips  all  calculation ;  its  luxury  is  not 
less  reduplicative  and  its  corruption  is  unspeakable.  *  *  * 
The  supremacy  of  the  Empire  Club  at  the  ballot  box  is  con- 
fessed in  our  highest  Federal  elections.  On  the  spot,  you 
are  informed  that  the  mob  has  elected  itself  to  the  magis- 
tracy of  the  city,  and  that  the  watchmen  are  themselves 
thieves.  *  *  *  Not  to  dwell  on  other  numerous  details, 
which  are  familiar  to  all  readers  of  the  newspapers,  and 
touching  lightly  upon  the  negro  and  fire  riots  of  Philadel- 
phia, we  are  sorry  to  learn  that  the  beautiful  city  of  Balti- 
more finds  it  proverbial  wealth  and  refinement  suddenly 
surrounded  by  a  ruffianism  more  brutal  and  more  aggres- 
sive than  has  been  heretofore  imagined  a  possibility  in 
America."2  And  this  was  written  as  early  as  April,  1853. 

I  have  traced  the  history  of  the  Know  Nothing  party 

1  "Maryland  Contested  Election,"  829.    Clipper,  November  9,  1855. 

2  "  Religion  for  the  Republic,"  Church  Review,  April,  1853. 


189]  Growth  of  the  Party  in  Maryland.  45 

in  Maryland  down  through  the  year  1856.  This  year  di- 
vides the  history  of  the  party  into  two  distinct  periods.  The 
campaign  of  1856  was  its  first  and  last  campaign  as  a  na- 
tional party.  In  the  spring  of  1857  the  National  Council 
met  and  recommended  that  each  State  should  be  allowed 
to  adopt  such  a  platform  as  it  deemed  best.1  After  this 
date  principles  are  wholly  lost  sight  of  and  the  party  is 
ruled  entirely  by  the  clubs  and  the  aspirants  for  office.  The 
Democratic  party,  defeated  and  disheartened,  and  hope- 
lessly divided  into  rotators  and  anti-rotators,  no  longer 
offered  an  effective  resistance.  Hereafter  we  do  not  have 
the  bloody  riots  which  characterized  the  first  period.  The 
fighters  of  the  Democracy,' beaten  and  outnumbered,  re- 
fused to  give  battle,  and  some,  eager  to  be  on  the  winning 
side,  joined  the  ranks  of  the  Know  Nothings,  and  the  latter 
had  sense  enough  to  leave  the  Eighth  Ward,  the  stronghold 
of  the  Irish,  in  the  undisputed  sway  of  the  Democrats. 
From  this  time  the  election  disorder  consists  in  intimidat- 
ing and  in  sticking  awls  into  peaceful  citizens.  But  these 
events  can  best  be  considered  in  their  proper  place.  The 
next  chapter  will  be  devoted  to  the  consideration  of  the 
causes  of  Know  Nothing  success  in  this  first  period. 

1  June  2,  at  Louisville. 


III.     CAUSES  OF  THE  SUCCESS  OF  THE  KNOW 
NOTHINGS. 

In  considering  the  causes  of  the  success  of  the  party  in 
Maryland,  we  shall  first  take  up  the  opposition  to  the  for- 
eigners. It  is  far  beyond  the  scope  of  this  monograph  to 
consider  the  effect  of  immigration  upon  American  civiliza- 
tion or  the  development  of  the  country.  I  shall  merely 
consider  the  conditions  which  led  to  opposition  to  the  for- 
eigner at  this  time.  The  late  forties  and  the  early  fifties 
were  years  unprecedented  in  the  number  of  immigrants 
who  came  into  the  country.  Never  before  and  not  for 
twenty  years  afterward  was  there  such  a  rush  of  immigrants 
as  between  1850  and  1855.  The  immigration  was  408,828 
in  1851,  397,343  in  l852>  400,474  in  1853,  46o>474  in  I854.1 
In  Maryland  there  are  no  figures  to  show  the  number  of 
foreign  settlers  each  year,  as  many  of  the  immigrants  arriv- 
ing at  Baltimore  went  through  to  the  West,  and  many  also 
came  to  Maryland  who  had  landed  at  the  Northern  ports. 
However,  we  may  take  the  figures  of  the  census  of  1860  as 
approximately  representing  the  proportion  of  foreign  popu- 
lation in  Maryland,  as  there  was  a  great  falling  off  in  the 
immigration  after  1854,  and  the  foreign-born  population 
did  not  increase  in  any  larger  ratio  than  the  natives.  In 
1860  the  total  white  population  in  the  State  was  599,860. 
Of  these  the  foreign-born  numbered  77,536,  or  a  little  over 
eleven  per  cent,  of  the  entire  population.  This,  however, 
was  not  evenly  distributed,  but  was  mostly  in  the  city  of 
Baltimore.  Here  the  total  population  was  212,418,  while 

1  House  Executive  Documents,  34th  Congress,  3d  Session,  No.  78, 
37.     Also  Brownell :   "  History  of  Immigration,"  153.      The  figures 
vary  slightly  in  the  different  reports,  but  not  enough  to  make  any 
material  difference. 
46 


101]     Causes  of  the  Success  of  the  Know  Nothings.        47 

the  foreign-born  numbered  52,497,  or  over  twenty-four 
per  cent,  of  the  entire  white  population  of  the  city.  This 
left  the  proportion  of  foreign-born  to  the  native  population 
in  the  entire  State  outside  of  Baltimore  a  little  over  six  per 
cent.  Of  the  52,497  foreign-born  citizens  in  Baltimore, 
32,613  were  Germans  and  15,536  were  Irish.1 

As  the  stream  of  immigration  rose  higher  and  higher,  it 
could  not  help  but  stir  up  apprehension,  and  it  was  feared 
that  the  United  States  would  be  swamped  in  the  ever-in- 
creasing tide.  At  various  times  in  the  history  of  the  coun- 
try opposition  has  cropped  out  against  the  immigrants. 
Notably  in  the  Alien  Act  of  1798  and  in  the  short-lived 
Native  American  movement  in  1844-45.  To  the  natives  in 
the  fifties  it  appeared  that  this  was  a  part  of  the  work  of  the 
Holy  Alliance  in  its  endeavors  to  suppress  democracy.2 
Men  in  Congress  gravely  gave  vent  to  their  fears  that  the 
country  was  endangered  by  this  immigration,  and  it  was 
pointed  out  how  easy  it  would  be  for  a  foreign  power  to 
send  an  army  of  a  hundred  thousand  men  to  this  country 
in  the  guise  of  immigrants.8  Furthermore,  the  Duke  of 
Richmond  was  reported  to  have  said  that  the  European 
governments  were  determined  upon  our  destruction,  and 
that  by  sending  over  the  low  population  of  Europe  we 
would  be  plunged  into  civil  war  and  discord,  and  a  despot-. 
ism  would  result.4 

The  fears  were  increased  by  the  conduct  of  the  immi- 
grants themselves,  and  especially  of  the  Germans.  Indeed, 
many  of  the  latter  had  come  to  this  country  after  the  sup- 
pression of  the  revolutionary  outbreaks  in  Europe  in  1848, 
expecting  to  return  within  a  few  months  and  to  recom- 


1  Census  1860.     "Volume  on  Population,"  xxxi. 

2  Robertson:   "The  American  Party,   its  Principles,  Objects  and 
Hopes,"  15. 

3  Cong.  Globe,  2d  Session,  33d  Congress.    Appendix,  94. 

4  "  Reasons   for    Abandoning    the    Old    Whig    and    Democratic 
Parties,"  9. 


48        History  of  Know  Nothing  Party  in  Maryland.      [192 

mence  their  opposition  to  the  governments.1  These  Ger- 
mans made  no  effort  to  Americanize  themselves,2  and  in 
fact  they  thought  that  all  America  would  be  Germanized.8 
This  was  to  be  accomplished  by  the  founding  of  German 
States  in  the  West  and  in  the  dissemination  of  German  cul- 
ture from  these  central  points.4  These  movements  did  not 
fail  to  be  noticed  by  American  politicians,  and  one  member 
of  Congress  expressed  himself  as  follows :  "The  foreigner 
believes  that  America  is  the  natural  rendezvous  for  all  the 
exiled  patriots  and  disappointed  and  turbulent  persons  of 
the  earth,  and  that  here  they  are  to  meet  to  form  plans  and 
concoct  schemes  to  revolutionize  all  creation  and  the  rest  of 
mankind."5  And  again:  "They  aspire  to  play  reformers 
and  insolently  form  associations  and  devise  plans  to  im- 
prove our  homely  American  institutions  into  the  likeness 
of  the  bloody  and  drunken  dreams  of  French  and  German 
liberty."6 

These  tendencies  were  embodied  in  the  demand  of  the 
German  Social  Democratic  Association  of  Richmond,7  and 
the  organization  of  a  German  Reform  party  by  the  "Free 
Germans"  of  Louisville,  Ky.8  The  reforms  demanded  by 
the  German  Democratic  Association  were  as  follows : 

"Reforms  in  the  laws  of  the  General  Government  as  well 
as  those  of  the  States.  We  demand:  (i)  Universal  Suf- 
frage. (2)  The  election  of  all  officers  by  the  people.  (3) 
The  abolition  of  the  Presidency.  (4)  The  abolition  of 
Senates,  so  that  the  Legislatures  shall  consist  of  only  one 
branch.  (5)  The  right  of  the  people  to  recall  their  repre- 

1T.  S.  Baker:  "Lenau  and  Young  Germany  in  America,"  56. 
*  Ibid.,  57.  zlbid.,  60. 

*Ibid.,  72.     A  full  account  of  these  German  movements  may  be 
found  in  the  work  of  Dr.  Baker  referred  to. 

5  Cong.  Globe,  2d  Session,  33d  Congress.    Appendix,  95. 

6  H.  W.  Davis :   "  Origin,  Principles  and  Purposes  of  the  American 
Party." 

7  Cong.  Globe,  2d  Session,  33d  Congress.     Appendix,  95. 

8  American,  April  22,  1854. 


193]    Causes  of  the  Success  of  the  Know  Nothings.         49 

sentatives  (cashier  them)  at  their  pleasure.  (6)  The  right 
of  the  people  to  change  the  Constitution  when  they  like. 
(7)  All  law-suits  to  be  conducted  without  expense.  (8) 
A  department  of  the  Government  to  be  set  up  for  the  pur- 
pose of  protecting  immigration.  (9)  A  reduced  term  for 
acquiring  citizenship. 

"Reform  in  the  foreign  relations  of  the  Government :  (i) 
Abolition  of  all  neutrality.  (2)  Intervention  in  favor  of 
every  people  struggling  for  liberty. 

"Reform  in  what  relates  to  religions :  (i)  A  more  perfect 
development  of  the  principle  of  personal  freedom  and  lib- 
erty of  conscience ;  consequently  (a)  abolition  of  laws  for 
the  observance  of  the  Sabbath;  (b)  abolition  of  prayers  in 
Congress;  (c)  abolition  of  oath  upon  the  Bible;  (d)  repeal 
of  all  laws  exacting  a  religious  test  before  taking  an  office. 
(2)  A  prohibition  of  incorporations  of  all  church  property 
in  the  name  of  ecclesiastics. 

"Reform  in  the  social  condition:  (i)  Abolition  of  land 
monopoly.  (2)  Ad  valorem  taxation  of  property.  (3) 
Amelioration  of  the  condition  of  the  working  class :  (a)  By 
lessening  the  time  of  work  to  eight  hours  for  grown  persons, 
and  to  five  hours  for  children ;  (b)  by  incorporation  of  me- 
chanics' associations  and  protective  societies;  (c)  by  grant- 
ing a  preference  to  mechanics  before  other  creditors ;  (d)  by 
establishing  an  asylum  for  superannuated  mechanics  with- 
out means  at  the  public  expense.  (4)  Education  of  poor 
children  by  the  State.  (5)  Taking  possession  of  the  rail- 
roads by  the  State.  (6)  The  promotion  of  education:  (a) 
by  the  introduction  of  free  schools,  with  the  power  of  en- 
forcing parents  to  send  their  children  to  school  and  prohib- 
ition of  all  clerical  influence ;  (b)  by  instruction  in  the  Ger- 
man language;  (c)  by  establishing  a  German  University. 
(7)  The  supporting  of  the  slave-emancipation  exertions  of 
Cassius  M.  Clay  by  Congressional  laws.  (8)  Abolition  of 
Christian  system  of  punishment  and  introduction  of  the 
4 


50         History  of  Know  Nothing  Party  in  Maryland.      [194 

human  amelioration  system.  (9)  Abolition  of  capital  pun- 
ishment."1 

The  demands  of  the  German  Reform  party  at  Louisville 
were  practically  the  same  as  the  above.2 

These,  however,  were  merely  the  radical  dreams  of  a 
small  coterie  of  theorists,  and  were  looked  upon  by  the 
people  as  such.8  If  the  foreigner  had  kept  out  of  politics, 
all  this  talk  of  foreign  domination  would  probably  have 
fallen  flat.  But  such  an  increase  in  the  number  of  voters 
through  naturalization  did  not  escape  the  keen  notice  of  the 
American  politicians  of  both  parties,  and  frantic  efforts 
were  made  to  command  this  foreign  vote.*  Runners  were 
employed  to  colonize  these  voters  in  boarding  houses,5  and 
in  one  instance  a  committee  in  New  York  took  one  hun- 
dred and  sixty  aliens  from  a  ship  just  arrived  from  Liver- 
pool on  the  day  of  election,  and  conducted  them  to  the 
polls,  after  having  informed  them  that  they  became  Ameri- 
can citizens  the  instant  their  feet  touched  the  American 
shore.6  The  Democratic  party  seems  to  have  been  most 
successful  in  these  tactics,  as  most  of  the  foreign  voters 
(both  German  and  Irish)  were  enrolled  with  that  party.7 
This  in  itself  was  enough  to  set  most  of  the  Whigs  against 
the  immigrant.  General  Scott,  however,  the  Whig  nomi- 
nee for  President  in  1852,  made  a  great  bid  for  the  foreign 
vote  when  he  spoke  of  a  "rich  Irish  brogue"  and  a  "sweet 
German  accent."8 

The  catering  of  the  politicians  to  the  foreign  vote  could 
not  but  give  the  immigrants  an  exaggerated  idea  of  their 

1  Cong.  Globe,  2d  Session,  33d  Congress.     Appendix,  95. 

*  American,  April  22,  1854.      3  American,  editorial,  April  22,  1854. 

*"Remarks  on  the  Majority  and  Minority  Report  of  the  Select  Com- 
mittee on  Secret  Societies  of  the  Maryland  House  of  Delegates,"  n. 

5  Ibid.,  12.  6  Ibid. 

TKoerner  :  "  Das  Deutsche  Element  in  den  Vereinigten  Staaten," 
403.  Christian  Examiner,  1851,  LI,  355.  "  Principles  and  Objects 
of  the  American  Party,"  14. 

8  Henry  A.  Wise  :  "  Letter  on  Know  Nothingism,"  29. 


195]     Causes  of  the  Success  of  the  Know  Nothings.         51 

importance  in  politics.  Consequently  they  began  to  inter- 
fere in  local  politics  through  organizations  of  their  own. 
This  was  especially  true  of  the  Germans,  who,  speaking  a 
different  language  and  naturally  somewhat  clannish,  pre- 
sented a  good  opportunity  to  be  controlled  as  a  unit.  The 
politicians  also  favored  this,  as  it  enabled  them  to  manage 
this  vote  more  easily  through  a  few  influential  leaders  than 
if  they  had  to  deal  with  them  as  individuals.  The  result 
was  that  the  Germans  soon  learned  their  power  and  began 
to  form  organizations  of  their  own.1 

During  1853  the  Germans  in  Baltimore  held  frequent 
meetings  in  order  to  discuss  the  merits  of  the  various  can- 
didates.2 They  finally  sent  inquiries  to  each  candidate 
for  Congress,  inquiring:  (i)  "If  he  is  convinced  of  the 
justice  and  necessity  of  our  organization?  (2)  If  he  openly 
pledges  himself  to  represent  us  in  Congress  according  to 
the  laws  of  equity  and  justice  without  any  reference  to 
native-born  American  citizens?"3  Only  one  candidate, 


1  Easton  Star,  September  6,  1853.  Cf.  the  following  from  the  Balti- 
more Sun  of  January  12,  1898:  "A  German-American  Republican  Club 
was  organized  last  night  at  1000  Hopkins  Avenue,  in  the  Seventh 
Ward,  with  150  members. 

"  The  Constitution  provides  that  no  one  shall  be  admitted  to  mem- 
bership in  the  club  who  cannot  speak  and  write  the  German  language. 
In  addition  it  is  stipulated  that  all  the  proceedings  of  the  meetings 
shall  be  in  the  German  language  and  that  all  speeches  delivered  on 
all  occasions  must  be  made  in  German.  *  *  * 

"Mr.  K.  Rudolph  Sternberg,  in  a  speech  at  the  club,  said :  'The 
Germans,  considering  their  numbers  in  this  country,  have  no  repre- 
sentation in  the  city,  State  or  National  Government.  There  is  only 
one  native  born  German  now  in  Congress,  Mr.  Barthold,  of  Missouri. 
It  was  left  to  him  to  be  the  sole  defender  of  the  illustrious  Carl  Schurz, 
a  few  days  ago  when  that  gifted  statesman  was  attacked  in  Congress 
by  Representative  Grosvenor  of  Ohio.  We  must  organize  and  stick 
together  if  we  are  to  have  any  representation  such  as  we  deserve  in 
the  Nation,  to  whose  greatness  our  race  has  contributed  so  much." 

*  Easton  Star,  Baltimore  Correspondence,  September  6,  1853. 

3Sun,  July  4,  1853  ;  Clipper,  July  6  ;  American,  July  9. 


52        History  of  Know  Nothing  Party  in  Maryland.      [196 

Mr.  William  Preston,  had  the  independence  to  declare  him- 
self opposed  to  any  political  organization  along  national 
lines.  The  others  were  not  all  so  frank,  and  one  candidate 
evaded  the  questions  by  replying  that  he  could  not  answer, 
owing  to  an  attack  of  cholera  morbus,  saying,  "My  physi- 
cal and  almost  mental  depression  would  have  rendered  it 
impossible  for  me  to  reply  to  the  letter  in  such  a  manner 
as  I  desire  to  do  to  the  German  Association."1 

Such  an  interference  of  the  newcomer  in  American  poli- 
tics could  not  help  but  stir  up  the  natives  against  him. 
Statistics  of  crime  and  vagrancy  were  appealed  to  in  order 
to  show  the  demoralizing  effect  of  the  foreigner  (not  the 
German  especially)  upon  American  life.2  There  were  no 
doubt  among  the  immigrants  some  convicts  and  paupers 
deported  by  the  European  governments.  The  most  unde- 
sirable portion  of  this  immigration  had  also  settled  in  the 
large  cities,  and  these  were  the  centers  of  Know  Nothing 
strength.  As  to  the  charge  that  the  foreign  element  was 
responsible  for  the  disorder,  the  lawless  conduct  of  the 
Know  Nothing  party  belied  this  statement.  The  indus- 
trial competition  of  the  foreigner  also  stirred  up  opposition 
against  him.  Kossuth,  the  Hungarian  patriot,  had  visited 
the  United  States  a  few  years  before,  and  had  been  enthu- 
siastically received  and  ftted  in  all  parts  of  the  country. 
The  reaction  against  everything  foreign  was  now  beginning 
to  set  in. 

In  Maryland  and  the  South  immigration  was  feared  on 
account  of  its  effect  upon  the  question  of  slavery.  This 
was  really  the  cause  of  the  opposition  to  the  foreigner  south 
of  Mason  and  Dixon's  line.  There  being  no  large  cities, 
there  was  no  great  foreign  settlement  in  the  South,  except 
in  Baltimore,  as  free  labor  found  it  impossible  to  exist 
alongside  of  slave  labor.  It  was  not  because  the  foreigner 
settled  among  them  that  the  Southerners  opposed  him,  but 
because  he  was  opposed  to  slavery,  and  went  to  settle  new 

LSnu,  July  4,  1853.  2  "  Madison  Letters,"  No.  8. 


197]    Causes  of  the  Success  of  the  Know  Nothings.         53 

free  States  in  the  Northwest.1  Indeed,  the  fantastic  im- 
agination of  the  extreme  pro-slavery  advocate,  always  seek- 
ing a  bogey,  saw  "abolition  emigrant  societies  stretching 
their  arms  all  over  Europe  to  subsidize  the  foreigner  into 
a  crusade  against  slavery."2  The  opposition  was'  most 
forcibly  manifested  on  the  breaking  out  of  the  Civil  War. 
On  April  20,  1861,  the  German  Turner  Hall  was  sacked 
by  indignant  Southern  men  because  it  was  reported  that  a 
number  of  Germans  had  volunteered  their  services  to  the 
government  at  Washington.  On  the  same  night  the  office 
of  the  Wecker,  a  German  paper,  was  attacked  by  a  mob  on 
account  of  the  anti-slavery  views  expressed  by  that  jour- 
nal.3 Englishmen  were  also  disliked  because  of  opposition 
to  slavery,  and  it  was  charged  that  they  had  come  to  stir 
up  discord  on  the  slavery  question.4  The  Irish  immi- 
grants, being  mostly  Catholics,  came  in  for  a  double  share 
of  the  opposition.6  However,  many  of  the  bitterest  of 
the  Know  Nothings,  although  of  course  not  members  of 
the  order,  were  the  Protestant  Irish  who  joined  the  party 
on  account  of  its  opposition  to  their  Catholic  brethren.6 
This  leads  us  to  a  consideration  of  the  opposition  to  the 
Catholics. 

Mr.  James  Ford  Rhodes  has  said  that  "distrust  of  Ra- 
man Catholicism  is  a  string  that  can  be  artfully  played  upon 

1 "  Reasons  why  Coleman  Yellott  would  not  have  Voted  to  Cen- 
sure Henry  Winter  Davis,"  7. 

2  Speech  of  L.  M.  Keitt,  of  South  Carolina,  in  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives. Cong.  Globe,  2d  Session,  33d  Congress.  Appendix,  67. 

3Sun,  American,  April  22,  1861. 

4  "Reasons  for  Abandoning  the  Old  Whig  and  Democratic  Parties," 
10.    It  is  worth  noting  that  English  travelers  in  this  country  returned 
to  England  and  stirred  up  a  public  feeling  against  slavery ;  yet  when 
the  Civil  War  broke  out  the  aid  and  sympathies  of  England  were 
entirely  with  the  South.     It  is  a  signal  illustration  of  Cecil  Rhodes 
late  remark  about  "  English  philantrophy  plus  five  per  cent." 

5  "  Principles  and  Objects  of  the  American  Party,"  14. 

6  Maguire :  "  Irish  in  America,"  450. 


54        History  of  Know  Nothing  Party  in  Maryland.      [198 

in  an  Anglo-Saxon  community."1  Every  now  and  then  it 
crops  out  in  Lord  George  Gordon  "No  Popery  Riots,"  in 
a  Know  Nothing  movement,  or  the  latest  manifestation  of 
it  in  the  A.  P.  A.  But  it  required  no  artful  playing  to 
bring  this  question  to  the  front  in  the  early  fifties.  There 
were  causes  at  this  time,  both  general  and  local,  which  had 
a  great  influence  in  stirring  up  opposition  to  the  Catholics. 

In  its  early  settlement  Maryland  had  been  largely  colo- 
nized by  Roman  Catholics,  the  proprietor  of  the  colony 
himself  being  a  Catholic.  With  the  increase  in  the  numbers 
of  Protestants  ill  feeling  had  developed,  where  at  first  there 
had  been  more  or  less  mutual  toleration.  As  the  number 
of  Puritans  in  the  colony  increased,  this  opposition  became 
more  strenuous,  and  in  1654  the  Act  of  Toleration  was  re- 
pealed and  a  new  act  provided  "that  none  who  professed  and 
exercised  the  Popish  (commonly  called  Roman  Catholic) 
religion  could  be  protected  in  this  province."2  In  1658  the 
Act  of  Toleration  was  again  enacted.3  The  Catholics  and 
Protestants  distrusted  each  other,  and  the  opposition  to  the 
Catholics,  combined  with  the  grievances  against  the  Pro- 
prietor, were  enough  to  overthrow  the  proprietary  govern- 
ment when  the  news  of  the  invasion  of  England  by  William 
III  reached  the  colony  in  1689.* 

The  descendants  of  the  Protestants  inherited  and  shared 
this  antipathy  to  the  Catholics,  and  at  various  times  consid- 
erable ill-feeling  was  developed.  For  instance,  this  showed 
itself  in  1839,  when  a  great  commotion  was  caused  by  the 
escape  of  a  nun  from  one  of  the  convents.5  This  nun, 

*J.  F.  Rhodes:  "History  of  the  United  States  since  the  Compro- 
mise 1850,"  II,  50. 

2  "Maryland  Archives,  Proceedings  of  .the  Assembly,  1654,"  340. 

*Ibid.,  351. 

*F.  E.  Sparks:  "Causes  of  the  Maryland  Revolution  of  1689," 
Johns  Hopkins  University  Studies  in  Historical  and  Political  Science, 
Series  XIV,  Nos.  XI  and  XII,  passim. 

5  A.  B.  Cross  :  "Priests'  Prisons  for  Women,"  n  ;  also  Sun,  Amer- 
ican, August  19,  1839. 


199]     Causes  of  the  Success  of  the  Know  Nothings.        55 

who,  it  was  alleged,  was  of  unsound  mind,  took  refuge  in 
a  house  in  the  neighborhood  of  the  convent,  and  threw  her- 
self upon  the  protection  of  the  residents.  The  priest  in 
charge  of  the  convent  attempted  to  take  her  back,  and,  the 
day  being  Sunday,  a  large  crowd  soon  gathered,  and  it 
looked  as  if  serious  difficulty  would  result.  Only  the 
timely  arrival  of  the  Mayor,1  and  the  interference  of  calmer 
citizens  prevented  serious  trouble.  There  was  consider- 
able talk  of  mobbing  the  convent,  and  a  number  of  citizens 
volunteered  to  guard  it  during  the  night. 

This  was  only  an  outcropping  of  the  sentiment  against 
the  Catholics,  which  the  Catholics  themselves  fostered  a 
short  time  before  the  rise  of  the  Know  Nothing  party  by 
their  activity  in  injecting  a  sectarian  issue  into  local  poli- 
tics in  order  to  obtain  a  division  of  the  public  school  fund. 
It  was  the  old  struggle  which  recurs  at  frequent  intervals, 
in  which  the  Catholic  Church  shows  itself  hostilely  opposed 
to  the  American  system  of  public  schools.  The  Catholics, 
themselves  gave  the  Know  Nothings  good  cause  for  com- 
plaint against  "the  aggressive  policy  and  corrupting  ten- 
dencies"2 of  the  Catholic  Church.  Indeed,  there  could  have 
been  hardly  any  objection  raised  against  the  public  schools 
of  Baltimore  on  the  score  of  religious  teaching.  No  sec- 
tarian instruction  was  given,  and  even  in  the  matter  of 
Bible  reading  a  distinction  was  made  between  the 
Protestant  and  Catholic  children.  The  Protestant  version 
was  read  to  the  children  of  Protestant  parents,  while  the 
Douay  version  was  read  to  the  Catholics  in  another  apart- 
ment.3 

In  view  of  these  facts  it  seemed  all  the  more  offensive 
that  a  bill  should  be  introduced  into  the  Legislature  allow- 
ing a  division  of  public  funds  among  private  schools  giving 

1 S.  C.  Leakin. 

8  Platform  1855,  sec.  8. 

3  "  Report  of  the  School  Commissioners  of  Baltimore,  1856,"  45. 


56        History  of  Know  Nothing  Party  in  Maryland.      [200 

gratuitous  instruction.  At  the  sessions  of  the  Legislature 
in  1852  and  I8531  the  "Kerney  Bill,"  so-called  from  the 
chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Education,  was  reported  for 
the  above  purpose.2  The  bill  of  1852  was  laid  on  the  table 
on  the  motion  of  its  author,3  and  not  again  taken  up,  while 
that  of  1853  was  taken  up4  and  given  back  to  the  committee, 
from  which  it  never  reappeared.  Numerous  petitions  both 
for  and  against  the  measure  were  presented,6  the  great  ma- 
jority being  opposed  to  it,  and  in  1853  a  mass-meeting  was 
held  at  the  Maryland  Institute  to  protest  against  the  pas- 
sage of  the  bill.6  This  meeting  was  addressed  by  the  most 
prominent  Protestant  ministers  of  the  city.  Also  at  the 
same  time  a  memorial  headed  by  Archbishop  Kenrick, 
praying  for  a  reform  of  the  public  schools,  was  presented 
to  the  City  Council.7 

In  the  municipal  campaign  of  1852  the  question  had  been 
brought  even  more  directly  into  the  field  of  politics.  The 
Archbishop  and  some  representative  Catholics  addressed 
the  following  circular-letter  to  the  candidates  for  Mayor, 
asking  them  to  define  their  positions : 

"The  undersigned,  on  behalf  of  themselves  and  many  of 
the  citizens,  desire  to  know  prior  to  the  next  election  for 
Mayor  of  the  city : 

1.  "Whether  or  not  you  are  favorable  to  such  a  change 
in  the  present  school  laws  as  would  secure  a  distribution  of 
the  school  fund  amongst  all  the  schools  and  orphan  asy- 
lums of  this  city,  pro  rata  to  the  number  of  scholars,  where 
the  rate  of  charge  is  not  greater  than  that  in  the  public 
schools  of  similar  grade;  or 

2.  "Such  a  change  as  would  secure  to  each  taxpayer  the 
right  to  select  the  particular  schools  to  which  his  portion 

JThe  same  Legislature  sitting  in  two  separate  years,  owing  to  the 
adoption  of  a  new  Constitution. 
'2  House  Journal,  1852,  606.     Ibid.,  1853,  330. 
3Ibid.,  1852,  768.  *Ibid.,  1853,  551. 

5  Ibid.,  1852  and  1853,  passim.  ^Clipper,  April  12,  1853. 

''Journal  First  Branch  City  Council,  1853,  545. 


201]     Causes  of  the  Success  of  the  Know  Nothings.        57 

of  the  school  tax  shall  be  paid  (see  Declaration  of  Rights, 
1776,  section  33). 

3.  "And  whether  or  not,  if  a  bill  affecting  such  changes  in 
the  present  law  shall  pass  the  City  Council,  you  would  give 
your  assent  to  it,  should  you  be  elected  to  the  Mayoralty  of 
this  city. 

"To  prevent  misapprehension  for  the  future,  the  under- 
signed waive  for  the  present  all  questions  as  to  the  consti- 
tutionality of  any  school  tax."1 

This  letter  was  signed  by  B.  R.  Spalding,  F.  Neale,  M. 
Courtney  Jenkins,  and  T.  Parkin  Scott.  Both  the  candi- 
dates rather  evaded  a  direct  reply,  stating  that  they  would 
give  the  subject  the  proper  consideration  which  their  duty 
required.2  These  answers  were  so  far  from  being  satisfac- 
tory that  there  was  considerable  talk  of  running  a  third  can- 
didate who  would  favor  the  Kerney  Bill.3  The  advocates 
of  the  measure  were  too  sharp  to  expose  themselves  to  an 
undoubted  defeat,  and  so  the  matter  rested.  When  the 
Know  Nothing  party  came  on  the  scene,  a  short  time  later, 
their  opponents  and  the  Catholics  were  quick  to  denounce 
them  for  introducing  the  question  of  religion  into  politics, 
but  the  Catholics  had  evidently  anticipated  them  in  this 
respect. 

Not  only  in  Baltimore  but  in  Western  Maryland  as  well, 
was  their  political  activity  manifested.  In  Cumberland  the 
Catholics  were  said  to  have  nominated  one  of  their  own 
number  for  the  City  Council  in  order  to  condemn  and  close 
a  street  which  ran  between  the  German  Catholic  Church 
and  some  property  owned  by  the  priest.4  It  was  also  charged 
that  the  Catholics  had  deserted  the  Whig  party  in  great 
numbers  in  the  election  of  1850  in  order  to  vote  for  Lowe, 
the  Democratic  candidate  for  Governor,  who  was  a  Catho- 
lic.5 

1  Clipper,  October  i,  1852.  2 Ibid. 

3  Ibid.,  October  2.  *  Clipper,  May  9,  1853. 

5H.  W.  Davis  :  "  Origin,  Principles  and  Purposes  of  the  American 
Party,"  31. 


58         History  of  Know  Nothing  Party  in  Maryland.     [202 

So  far  we  have  only  considered  the  local  conditions 
which  were  likely  to  contribute  to  the  success  of  a  party 
which  had  opposition  to  the  Catholics  as  one  of  its  tenets. 
But  there  were  a  number  of  more  general  conditions  which 
did  not  fail  to  be  noticed.  In  several  States  there  had  been 
a  movement  to  take  the  Bible  out  of  the  public  schools,  and 
this  had  stirred  up  particular  resentment.  In  New  York 
this  was  especially  true.  Archbishop  Hughes  had  thrown 
the  weight  of  his  influence  direct  from  the  pulpit  in  favor  of 
certain  candidates  who  were  favorable  to  the  Catholics. 
After  reviewing  the  contest,  he  said,  "The  question  lies  be- 
tween the  two  parties,  and  you  are  the  judges ;  if  you  desert 
the  cause,  what  can  you  expect  from  strangers?  *  *  * 
I  wish  therefore  for  you  to  look  well  to  your  candidates, 
and  if  they  are  disposed  to  make  infidels  or  Protestants  of 
your  children,  let  them  receive  no  vote  of  yours."1  Arch- 
bishop Hughes  was  well  calculated  to  stir  up  some  of  the 
Catholics  to  assert  what  they  were  told  were  their 
rights.  In  1844,  during  one  of  the  periodical  outbreaks 
between  the  Protestants  and  the  Catholics  in  New  York, 
the  Archbishop  encouraged  armed  resistance,  and  when 
milder  measures  were  counseled  by  some  of  the  Catholics 
he  retorted  that  "if  a  single  Catholic  church  were  burned 
in  New  York,  the  city  would  become  a  second  Moscow."2 
The  attitude  of  the  Catholic  Church  on  the  question  of 
church  property  led  to  a  long  controversy  between  Senator 
Brooke  of  New  York  and  Archbishop  Hughes.  It  was  a 
rule  of  the  Catholic  Church  that  all  church  property  should 
be  vested  in  the  bishop.  The  trustees  of  the  Church  of  St. 
Louis,  in  Buffalo,  refused  to  transfer  their  title,  and  as  a 
result  they  were  put  under  the  ban  of  the  Church  and 

1  Maguire  :  "  Irish  in  America,"  434. 

2  Ibid.,  441.     It  should  be  noted  that  these  extracts  are  not  taken 
from  a  writer  opposed  to  the  Catholics,  but  from  a  Catholic  writer  who 
glorifies  in,  and  commends  such  bellicose  expressions. 


203]     Causes  of  the  Success  of  the  Know  Nothings.        59 

excommunicated.1  The  trustees  of  the  church  were  sup- 
ported in  their  course  by  the  law  of  the  State  of  New  York. 

To  adjudicate  the  question,  a  Papal  legate,  Bedini,  was 
sent  as  the  representative  of  the  Pope.  A  Papal  legate  was 
something  new  and  the  position  of  this  one  was  very  pecu- 
liar. He  came  to  adjudicate  between  the  Bishop  of  Buffalo 
and  the  laws  of  the  State  of  New  York,  and  decided  in  favor 
of  the  Bishop.  He  was  very  kindly  received  by  the  Presi- 
dent, and  a  Government  vessel  was  placed  at  his  disposal 
to  make  a  tour  of  the  Great  Lakes.2  The  populace,  how- 
ever, did  not  receive  him  so  kindly,  and  in  many  cities 
organized  mobs  adopted  the  petty  expedient  of  burning 
him  in  effigy.  The  fact  that  many  of  the  Catholics  and 
the  priests  were  immigrants  and  aliens  also  did  not  fail  to 
be  taken  into  account.8 

The  question  of  the  temporal  power  of  the  Pope  also 
came  up  for  discussion.  In  spite  of  the  declaration  of  the 
Archbishop  of  Baltimore,  that  the  allegiance  of  the  Cath- 
olics was  only  spiritual,4  the  Know  Nothings  held  that  the 
Catholics  owed  a  temporal  allegiance  to  the  Pope  which 
was  higher  than  the  Constitution.5  To  prove  this  point 
misrepresentation  was  not  neglected.  Brownson's  Review, 
a  leading  Catholic  magazine,  was  reported  to  have  said 
that  "if  the  Pope  directed  the  Roman  Catholics  of  this 
country  to  overthrow  the  Constitution,  to  sell  the  national- 
ity of  the  country  and  annex  it  as  a  dependent  province  to 
Napoleon  the  Little's  crown,  they  would  be  bound  to 
obey."6  This  quotation  Brownson  denied  and  disavowed 
in  toto,  declaring  that  his  allegiance  was  only  spiritual.7 
While  Brownson  (who  was  a  recent  convert  to  Catholi- 
cism) had  not  gone  to  this  degree,  he  had  held  some  very 

1  Cong.  Globe,  ist  Session,  34th  Congress.    Appendix,  968.     *lbid. 

8  H.  W.  Davis  :  "  Origin,  Principles  and  Purposes  of  the  American 

Party,"  31.  *  Supra,  p.  23.  5  "Sons  of  the  Sires,"  201. 

6  "Reasons  for  Abandoning  the  Old  Whig  and  Democratic  Par- 
ties," 7. 

7  Brownson's  Review,  III  series,  III,  123  ff. 


60         History  of  Know  Nothing  Party  in  Maryland.      [204 

extreme  doctrines  which  almost  amounted  to  the  same 
thing.  "The  temporal  order,"  he  said,  "is  subject  to  the 
spiritual,  and  consequently  every  question  that  does  or  can 
arise  in  the  temporal  order  is  evidently  a  spiritual  ques- 
tion and  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Church,  as  the  spir- 
itual authority,  and  therefore  of  the  Pope,"  and  carrying 
this  out  to  its  logical  conclusion,  he  says  the  Pope  "has 
the  right  to  pronounce  sentence  of  deposition  against  any 
sovereign  when  required  by  the  good  of  the  spiritual 
order."1 

In  justice  it  should  be  said  that  this  view  was  contro- 
verted by  Catholic  writers,  and  the  Metropolitan,  a  Cath- 
olic magazine,  published  at  Baltimore,  in  a  review  of 
Brownson's  article,  said :  "We  are  unwilling  to  make  any 
comments  on  this  doctrine.  We  think  it  enough  to  state 
it,  and  feel  confident  that  every  Catholic  in  the  country 
will  unite  with  us  in  protesting  against  it.  *  *  *  Though 
the  foregoing  is  not  the  only  point  on  which  we  think  he 
has  adopted  extreme  and  untenable  views,  we  appreciate 
and  approve  his  writings  in  other  respects,  warmly  and 
sincerely,  as  far  as  a  general  approbation  may  be  fairly  con- 
strued; but  on  this  point  particularly,  we  beg  leave  to  re- 
cord our  most  solemn  protest  against  his  doctrines."2  Two 
other  Catholic  journals,  the  Shepherd  of  the  Valley  and  the 
Freeman's  Journal,  were  exceedingly  prominent  by  their 
ultramontane  position  on  the  question  of  the  Pope's 
supremacy.3  The  former  of  these  papers  was  discontinued 

1  Brownson 's  Review,  III  series,  I,  48. 

2  Metropolitan,  II,  1854,  360,  361,  also  117. 

3 1  have  been  unable  to  obtain  a  file  of  these  papers.  The  Know 
Nothing  papers  and  pamphlets  contain  a  great  many  quotations  from 
them.  These  I  have  been  unable  to  verify.  Von  Hoist  quotes  from 
these  papers,  although  he  takes  his  quotations  from  the  polemical 
books  of  the  Know  Nothing  writers.  I  presume  he  has  verified  the 
extracts,  although  he  gives  the  above  extract  from  Brownson, 
which  is  false.  Of  the  many  quotations  of  the  alleged  Brownson 
passage  I  have  seen  only  one  which  had  a  reference  to  the  source. 
This  referred  it  to  April,  1853,  and  I  have  been  unable  to  find  it  in 


205]     Causes  of  the  Success  of  the  Know  Nothings.        61 

in  June,  1854,  owing  to  the  lack  of  financial  support.1  This 
would  hardly  indicate  that  a  large  number  of  the  Catholic 
population  shared  in  the  views  expressed  by  the  paper. 

Events  on  the  Continent  of  Europe  did  not  fail  of  atten- 
tion. The  Catholic  cantons  of  Switzerland  had  revolted 
only  a  few  years  before,2  and  with  some  degree  of  truth 
the  Catholic  Church  was  proclaimed  as  the  friend  of  mon- 
archy and  despotism  and  the  enemy  of  republican  insti- 
tutions.8 The  activity  of  the  Jesuits  and  their  banishment 
from  even  the  Catholic  countries  of  Europe  was  also  ap- 
pealed to  as  an  evidence  of  the  intriguing  tendencies  of  the 
Catholic  Church.4  These  views  were  also  intensified  by 
an  apostate  priest,  Gavazzi,6  who  made  a  tour  of  the  princi- 
pal cities  preaching  a  crusade  against  the  Catholic  Church. 
He  appeared  in  Baltimore  in  April,  1853,  and  his  failure  to 
obtain  the  Maryland  Institute  Hall  for  his  two  lectures  en- 
abled him  to  pose  as  a  martyr  to  Roman  intolerance.6  A 
traveling  preacher,  calling  himself  the  Angel  Gabriel,  also 
made  the  rounds  of  American  cities,  and  helped  to  stir  up 
sentiment  against  the  Catholics. 

The  opposition  to  the  Catholics,  so  far  as  it  related 
to  their  efforts  to  obtain  control  of  the  school  fund,  and 
to  inject  sectarian  issues  into  politics  was  justifiable,  but 
this  is  about  the  most  that  can  be  said.  It  was  a  pity  that 
this  opposition  had  been  carried  on  by  the  slanderous 
course  of  a  secret  organization,  which  was  just  as  incon- 
sistent with  the  spirit  of  the  Constitution  as  was  the  enemy 
against  which  it  pretended  to  protect  it.  But,  however, 

this  number  of  the  Review.  Even  if  the  other  extracts  from  these 
papers  are  incorrect,  which  is  unlikely,  they  would  be  valuable  as 
illustrating  the  manner  in  which  the  Catholic  population  was  rep- 
resented. 

1  Clipper,  June  17,  1854.     Metropolitan,  1854,  II,  461. 

2  Wm.  S.  Balch:  "Romanism  and  Republicanism  Incompatible,"  30. 

3  Ibid.,  23.  *  Ibid.,  32.  5  Cf.  Slattery  within  recent  years. 
6  Clipper,  April  20,  22,  1853.     This  was  the  only  paper  which  gave 

a  report  of  the  lectures. 


62         History  of  Know  Nothing  Party  in  Maryland.      [206 

men  may  differ  as  to  the  justification  of  the  party,  and  the 
real  danger  to  the  country,  it  can  be  readily  seen  how  these 
foregoing  incidents  would  stir  up  opposition  to  the  Cath- 
olics, and  contribute  to  the  success  of  a  party  which  had 
opposition  to  the  Catholics  as  one  of  its  principles. 

The  slavery  question  also  played  no  small  part  in  the  re- 
sult in  Maryland.  Not  even  a  party  opposed  to  foreigners 
and  immigrants  could  altogether  ignore  the  burning  ques- 
tion of  the  day,  no  matter  how  much  they  might  attempt  to 
straddle  it.  But  this  very  straddle  was  what  conduced  to 
its  success  in  Maryland. 

In  the  campaign  of  1856  this  question  was  really  upper- 
most, and  had  taken  the  place  of  the  anti-foreign  and  anti- 
Catholic  agitation  of  the  year  before.  The  Northern  mem- 
bers of  the  Know  Nothing  party  had  seceded  from  the 
convention  when  it  had  refused  to  adopt  an  abolition  plank, 
and  when  the  party  had  determined,  in  the  words  of  Prof. 
Wilson,  to  be  "Do  Nothings."1  The  entire  slavery  agita- 
tion was  condemned  and  the  party  proposed  to  leave  the  mat- 
ter in  statu  quo.2  Even  the  Maryland  Republican,  which  was 
opposed  to  the  Know  Nothing  party,  characterized  its 
slavery  plank  as  being  "sound,  Union-loving  and  consti- 
tutional.''3 

This  position  was  eminently  satisfactory  to  the  people 
of  Maryland  who  were  midway  between  the  abolition  ex- 
tremists in  the  North  and  the  slavery  Quixotes  in  the  South. 
Her  position  has  been  admirably  stated  by  Governor  Hicks 
in  his  inaugural  address  in  1858:  "A  slave-holding  State 
by  inheritance,  by  her  traditions,  usages  and  laws,  a  border 

1  Division  and  Reunion,  187. 

2  "The  unqualified  recognition  and  maintenance  of  the  reserved 
rights  of  the  several  States,  and  the  cultivation  of  harmony  and  fra- 
ternal good-will,  between  the  citizens  of  the  several  States,  and  to 
this  end,  non-interference  by  Congress  with  questions  appertaining 
solely  to  the  individual  States,  and  non-intervention  by  each  State  in 
the  affairs  of  any  other  State."     Platform,  1856,  sec.  6. 

3  Maryland  Republican,  Annapolis,  June  23,  1855. 


207]     Causes  of  the  Success  of  the  Know  Nothings.        63 

State  between  those  now  forbidding  slavery  and  those 
retaining  it;  allied  to  all  the  States  with  equal  sympathies, 
and  by  her  various  interests  nothing  can  be  indifferent  to 
her  people  which  tends  to  disturb  their  Union.  To  that 
Union  she  is  indissolubly  bound  by  every  tie,  by  every  in- 
terest in  the  present,  by  every  association  and  memory  oi 
the  past.  Her  people  heretofore  have  always  refused  to  take 
part  in  the  struggles  for  sectional  power.  Her  voice  has 
always  been  raised  for  peace  and  compromise,  from  the 
day  of  the  first  great  settlement  of  this  disturbance  down 
to  its  unpardonable  renewal,  and  the  violation  of  the  sacred 
compact1  by  which  it  was  settled  and  silenced."2 

And  at  this  point  it  is  well  to  make  a  digression  and  show 
the  position  of  the  party  in  Maryland  upon  the  slavery 
question.  In  Massachusets  the  party  had  gone  bag  and 
baggage  into  the  Free  Soil  camp.3  Yet  the  opponents  of 
slavery  distrusted  them,  and  Henry  Ward  Beecher  de- 
nounced them  in  his  usual  forcible  style.  Writing  in  the 
Independent,  he  said:  "One  might  as  well  study  optics  in 
the  pyramids  of  Egypt  or  the  subterranean  tombs  of  Rome, 
as  liberty  in  secret  conclaves  controlled  by  hoary  knaves 
versed  in  political  intrigue,  who  can  hardly  enough  express 
their  surprise  and  delight  to  see  honest  men  going  into  a 
widespread  system  of  secret  conclaves.  Honest  men  in 
such  places  have  a  peculiar  advantage  that  flies  have  in  a 
spider's  web  *  *  *  the  privilege  of  losing  their  legs, 
of  buzzing  without  flying,  and  of  being  eaten  up  at  leisure 
by  big-bellied  spiders."4 

Likewise  in  Maryland  the  opponents  of  the  Know  Noth- 
ings, led  by  the  Maryland  Union  at  Frederick,  charged  it 
with  being  allied  with  "Abolitionism"  and  "Black  Repub- 
licanism." It  is  to  establish  the  fact  that  the  Know  Noth- 
ing party  in  Maryland  was  not  opposed  to  slavery  that 

1  Missouri  Compromise.  2  Inaugural  Address,  1858,  7. 

3  Haynes  :  American  Historical  Review,  October,  1897,81. 
*  Independent,  January  18,  1855. 


64         History  of  Know  Nothing  Party  in  Maryland.     [208 

this  digression  is  made.  Its  position  can  be  shown  by  the 
action  of  two  Know  Nothing  Legislatures.  At  the  session 
of  the  Legislature  in  1856  the  House  of  Delegates  passed 
a  resolution  deprecating  the  election  of  a  sectionalist1  as 
Speaker  of  the  House  of  Representatives  which  concluded 
as  follows :  "Resolved,  That  while  we  accord  justice  to  all, 
we  boldly  assert  and  will  steadfastly  maintain  the  rights 
of  the  South  to  Southern  institutions,  and  we  will  repel,  at 
all  hazards,  any  interference  therewith. 

"Resolved,  That  the  views  in  regard  to  constitutional 
rights  and  national  policy,  expressed  in  the  foregoing  reso- 
lutions, are  the  same  which  have  ever  been  and  are  now 
entertained  and  advocated  by  the  citizens  of  Maryland, 
and  which  we  believe  will  ever  be  proclaimed  and  advo- 
cated by  their  Representatives  in  the  State  and  national 
Legislatures."2  A  substitute  was  offered  by  a  Democratic 
member,  stating:  "That  we  most  deeply  deplore  that  one 
of  the  Representatives  of  a  portion  of  the  people  of  this 
State,  should  in  such  an  emergency,  as  the  late  election 
of  the  Speaker  of  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the 
United  States,  have  failed  in  his  high  duty  to  his  con- 
stituents, and  given  to  our  sister  States  of  the  South  rea- 
sonable ground  to  apprehend  that  the  people  of  the  city  of 
Baltimore  are  not  with  them  in  sentiment  and  opinion  upon 
the  great  issue  now  before  the  country."3  This  was  defeated 
by  a  party  vote  of  eleven  to  forty-four,  and  the  original 
resolution  was  passed  without  a  dissenting  vote.4 

1  Banks.  *  House  Journal,  1856,  539. 

*  This  referred  to  the  fact  that  Henry  Winter  Davis  with  five  other 
Know  Nothings  voted  for  Fuller  for  Speaker  to  the  last,  when  they 
could  have  prevented  the  election  of  Banks  by  joining  forces  with  the 
Democrats,  who  were  supporting  Aiken.    The  final  vote  for  Speaker 
was  Banks,  103;  Aiken,  100;  Fuller,  6;  Campbell,  4;  Wells,  i.     The 
Speaker  was  elected  by  a  plurality  vote  under  a  resolution  adopted 
by  the  House  on  the  previous  day.     See  Cong.  Globe,  ist  Session, 
34th  Congress,  334,  et  seq. 

*  House  Journal,  1856,  541. 


209]      Causes  of  the  Success  of  the  Know  Nothings.        65 

Again  at  the  session  in  1858,  a  bill  being  under  consider- 
ation to  cede  to  the  United  States  jurisdiction  over  cer- 
tain lands,  the  following  amendment  was  adopted :  "That  if 
at  any  time  after  the  passage  of  this  Act,  the  Congress  of  the 
United  States,  shall  pass  any  law  abolishing  within  the  jur- 
isdiction of  the  same,  the  relation  of  master  and  slave  as  it 
now  exists  in  this  State  without  the  consent  of  this  State, 
then  from  and  after  the  passage  of  any  such  law  by  the 
Congress  aforesaid,  the  jurisdiction  required  by  the  United 
States,  within  the  limits  of  this  State,  over  any  part  of  the 
territories  of  the  same,  shall  cease  and  be  utterly  void  and 
of  none  effect,  and  such  jurisdiction  shall  revert  to  the 
State."1  The  amendment  was  accepted  by  a  vote  of  fifty- 
three  to  five,2  and  the  bill  as  amended  was  passed  without 
a  dissenting  vote.3  Many  of  the  Know  Nothings  were 
also  slave  holders,  and  many  of  them  supported  the  Federal 
Government  in  1861,  not  because  they  were  opposed  to 
slavery,  but  because  they  wanted  to  preserve  the  Union.4 

Not  only  the  slavery  plank  of  the  Know  Nothings,  but 
their  presidential  candidate  as  well  appealed  very  strongly 
to  the  people  of  Maryland.  The  national  campaign  of 
1856  was  a  three-cornered  contest.  At  the  one  extreme 
stood  Fremont,  the  Republican  nominee,  untried  and  inex- 
perienced in  politics,  who  was  looked  upon  as  a  sectional 
candidate.5  At  the  other  extreme  stood  Buchanan,  who 
had  "been  everything  by  turns,  and  nothing  longer  than 
suited  his  own  convenience."6  He  was  charged  with  having 
been  opposed  to  slavery  in  iSig,7  and  also  with  having 
slandered  Clay.8  Then  he  had  switched  around  as  a 

1  House  Journal,  1858,  762.  2  Ibid.,  763.  *  Ibid. 

*  The  emancipation  proclamation  did  not  free  the  slaves  in  Mary- 
land, as  it  applied  only  to  the  States  in  rebellion.  Nevertheless  it 
had  the  practical  effect  of  freeing  the  slaves,  and  consequently  ruin- 
ing many  people  who  were  friendly  to  the  Federal  Government. 

5  American,  June  24,  1856.      6  "  Letter  of  a  Conservative  Whig,"  4. 

7  "Buchanan's  Political  Record,"  6. 

8  Letter  from  an  old  and  constant  Whig  in  Baltimore  American, 
June  24,  1856. 

5 


66         History  of  Know  Nothing  Party  in  Maryland.      [210 

defender  of  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise,  and  a 
filibuster  with  Soule  at  Ostend.1  Midway  between  these 
two  stood  Fillmore,  who  represented  the  conservative  in- 
fluence of  the  old  school,  and  who  had  been  favorable  to 
the  Compromise  of  1850.  At  the  same  time  he  was  ex- 
ceedingly popular  throughout  the  State.2  His  having  been 
a  Whig  secured  him  the  support  of  the  old  Whigs,  who  did 
not  care  to  have  anything  to  do  with  Buchanan,  and  were 
not  yet  ready  to  take  up  with  the  new  party,  of  which  Fre- 
mont was  the  representative.  And  this  leads  to  a  consid- 
eration of  the  influence  of  the  old  Whig  party. 

One  most  potent  cause  of  the  success  of  the  Know  Noth- 
ing party  was  the  opportune  time  at  which  it  appeared. 
The  movement  in  1844  had  failed  because  the  old  parties3 
were  still  intact  and  men  were  not  looking  around  for  new 
political  connections.  But  by  the  middle  of  the  fifties  all 
this  had  been  changed.  The  death  of  Clay  and  Webster, 
in  1852,  and  the  crushing  defeat  of  Scott  in  the  presiden- 
tial contest  in  that  year,  had  utterly  annihilated  the  Whig 
party.  It  was  just  at  this  time  that  the  Know  Nothing  party 
appeared  in  the  field.  The  Whigs  who  had  followed  in 
the  footsteps  of  Henry  Clay  resented  the  destruction  of  the 
great  compromise  measure  for  which  he  had  labored  so 
long  and  earnestly.  For  this  repeal,  Douglas  and  the 
Democratic  party  were  responsible,  and  therefore  there 
could  be  no  comity  between  them  and  the  Whigs.  The 
trend  of  public  opinion  in  this  respect  was  only  reflected 
when  all  the  Whig  papers  in  Maryland,  except  the  Mary- 
land Republican,  published  at  Annapolis,  went  into  and 
supported  the  new  movement.4  Indeed,  one  of  the  most 
frequent  arguments  heard  against  the  Know  Nothing  party 
was  that  it  was  only  a  "Whig  trick." 

This  was  further  shown  by  the  fact  that  the  old  Whig 


1  "Letters  of  a  Conservative  Whig,"  4. 

*  Cecil  Democrat,  quoted  by  American,  November  17,  1856. 

3  Vide  supra,  13.  *  Easton  Star,  June  12,  1855. 


211]     Causes  of  the  Success  of  the  Know  Nothings.        67 

counties  were  carried  by  the  Know  Nothings.1  But  there 
was  undoubtedly  a  great  breaking  up  of  party  ties,  and  an 
interchange  of  votes.  The  Democratic  organization,  how- 
ever, remained  intact,  and  very  few  of  the  Democratic 
leaders  went  over  to  the  other  side,  and  what  accessions 
the  Know  Nothings  made  was  from  the  rank  and  file  of 
the  party.  With  the  old  Whigs  it  was  just  the  reverse. 
Most  of  the  rank  and  file  went  into  the  new  organization, 
while  many  men  who  had  been  prominent  in  the  party  came 
over  to  the  Democrats.  The  most  prominent  among  these 
were  S.  Teackle  Wallis,  Reverdy  Johnson,  James  Alfred 
Pearce  and  ex-Governor  Pratt. 

In  Baltimore  City  old  party  lines  were  more  broken  than 
in  the  counties,  and  the  Know  Nothings  received  great  ac- 
cessions from  the  Democrats.  The  most  marked  change 
was  in  the  Eighteenth  Ward.  This  ward  had  been  one  of 
the  Democratic  strongholds,  and.  it  now  became  the  banner 
ward  of  the  Know  Nothings.  This  ward,  adjacent  to  the 
Baltimore  and  Ohio  Railroad  shops,  was  inhabited  mainly  by 
mechanics  and  workingmen,  and  gives  a  clue  to  the  social 
status  of  a  great  number  of  the  Know  Nothing  party. 
Other  strong  Democratic  wards  which  came  under  the  con- 
trol of  the  new  party  were  the  first,  seventh  and  seven- 
teenth. In  1852  these  four  wards  had  given  a  Democratic 
vote  of  3661,  and  a  Whig  vote  of  1720.  In  1855  the  Demo- 
cratic vote  had  fallen  to  1896,  while  the  Know  Nothing 
vote  was  2198.  The  only  Democratic  wards  which  did 
not  show  a  decrease  on  the  advent  of  the  Know  Nothing 
party  were  the  second  and  the  eighth.  The  reason  for  this 
was  obvious,  as  the  former  was  composed  of  Germans  to 
a  large  extent,  while  the  latter  was  the  stronghold  of  the 
Irish.  Later  the  enterprising  methods  of  the  Know  Noth- 
ings succeeded  in  carrying  the  Second  Ward,  and  in  the 
palmy  days  of  Know  Nothing  success  the  Eighth  Ward 
("Old  Limerick"")  was  the  only  ward  which  remained  faith- 
ful to  the  banner  of  Democracy. 

1  See  election  statistics  in  "  Tribune  Almanac." 


68        History  of  Know  Nothing  Party  in  Maryland.      [212 

This  disappearance  of  the  Whigs  from  politics  was  more 
a  cause  of  weakness  than  a  source  of  strength  to  their 
Democratic  opponents.  The  eager  endeavor  to  get  a  nom- 
ination for  an  office  for  which  there  was  no  opposition 
caused  jealousies,  which  all  the  appeals  to  party  loyalty 
could  not  allay.  In  Western  Maryland,  in  1853,  there  was 
no  Whig  candidate  in  the  field,  and  William  T.  Hamilton 
was  the  nominee  of  the  Democratic  Convention.1  There 
was  considerable  discord  in  the  party  and  great  corruption 
was  charged  in  the  nominating  convention,2  and  the  result 
was  that  ex-Governor  Thomas  ran  as  an  Independent 
Democrat.3  In  Baltimore  City  there  was  the  same  lack 
of  harmony.  There  were  fierce  factional  fights  between 
Joshua  Vansant  and  William  Pinckney  Whyte,  and  be- 
tween Henry  May  and  William  P.  Preston  over  the  nomi- 
nation for  Congress.4  After  an  exciting  contest,  in  which 
the  ballot  box  of  the  Ninth  Ward  was  broken  up,  Vansant 
and  May  obtained  the  nominations.5  The  county  papers 
also  noticed  these  dissensions  and  stated  that  the  persist- 
ence of  the  factions  in  Baltimore  would  cause  the  downfall 
of  the  Democratic  party.6  Add  to  these  troubles  the  fact 
that  the  party  in  the  Legislature  of  1853  was  hopelessly 
divided  into  "hards"  and  "softs"  over  the  repeal  of  the 
prohibition  of  small  paper  notes,7  and  we  can  readily  see 
how  easy  it  was  for  a  compact  and  well-organized  party 
like  the  Know  Nothings  to  make  great  inroads  upon  the 
party  vote. 

In  addition  to  these  causes  the  age  was  one  essentially 
of  unrest,  both  in  politics  and  social  life.  In  the  wild  and 
exciting  arena  of  political  strife  men  did  not  know  exactly 
where  they  were.  The  Nation  might  be  said  to  be  just 

1  True  Democrat  (Frederick),  October  6,  1853. 

2  Ibid.  3  Ibid.  4  Sun,  June  25,  1853. 

5  Ibid.  6  Eastern  Star,  June  14,  1853.    July  19,  1853. 

1  Sun,  February  7,  1853.       Of-  "The  Democratic  Party  after  the 
Campaign  of  1896." 


213]     Causes  of  the  Success  of  the  Knozv  Nothings.        69 

budding  into  manhood,  and  was  full  of  the  wild  animal 
spirits  of  youth.  The  Nation  seemed  to  be  passing  through 
the  storm  and  stress  period  which  is  characteristic  of  early 
manhood.  Swayed  violently  back  and  forth  by  the  politi- 
cal unrest  and  sectional  discord,  many  men  caring  little 
for  the  so-called  "American  principles"  of  the  party  went 
into  it  looking  upon  it  as  a  kind  of  universal  panacea  for 
all  the  evils  of  mankind.  Third  parties  are  very  apt  to 
sweep  everything  momentarily  on  account  of  this  trait.  In 
the  early  days  of  the  party  the  secret  machinery  also  exer- 
cised a  charm  which  drew  many  into  it. 

To  sum  up  the  causes  of  the  success  of  the  party  were: 
(i)  A  largely  increased  immigration  followed  by  the  radi- 
cal demands  of  some  of  the  German  immigrants  and  a  jeal- 
ousy of  the  immigrant  in  politics.  (2)  The  interference 
of  the  Catholic  Church  in  politics  to  obtain  a  portion  of 
the  school  fund,  and  the  radical  and  ultramontane  position 
taken  by  certain  Catholics.  (3)  The  position  of  the  party 
on  the  slavery  question  and  the  personal  popularity  of 
MTllard  Fillmore.  (4)  The  disappearance  of  the  old  Whig 
party,  and  the  disorganization  within  the  Democratic  party. 
(5)  The  general  unrest  of  the  period  seeking  a  remedy  in 
any  new  expedient. 


IV.     HEIGHT    OF    KNOW    NOTHING    SUCCESS, 

1857-1858. 

The  early  months  of  1857  brought  forth  no  new  incidents 
in  the  progress  of  the  party  in  Maryland.  The  spring 
elections  in  the  small  towns  for  local  office  showed  no 
great  changes;1  in  some  cases  the  Know  Nothing  party 
showed  a  gain,  and  in  others  a  loss,  but  there  was  no  sub- 
stantial change  in  the  position  of  the  two  parties.  Not 
until  June  was  any  activity  noticeable,  when  there  occurred 
almost  simultaneously  two  events  which  again  stirred  up 
interest  in  the  party. 

The  first  of  these  was  the  municipal  election  in  Washing- 
ton in  June.  Great  interest  was  manifested  in  the  election 
in  Baltimore  and  there  was  much  excitement.  The  elec- 
tion was  conducted  in  much  the  same  manner  as  that  of  the 
year  before  in  Baltimore.  There  was  considerable  dis- 
order and  rioting,  and  the  marines  from  the  Navy  Yard 
were  finally  ordered  out  to  suppress  the  disorder.2  The 
result  was  a  collision  with  the  mob,  attended  with  some 
loss  of  life.  On  the  morning  of  the  election  a  large  number 
of  men  had  come  over  from  Baltimore,  and  these,  it  was 
charged,  began  the  trouble.  The  Democratic  papers 
claimed  that  the  riot  was  begun  by  the  Plug  Uglies  from 
Baltimore,3  while  the  Know  Nothings  charged  that  all  the 
trouble  was  caused  by  the  members  of  the  Empire  Club  of 
Baltimore,  who  had  gone  over  to  help  the  "loco-focos."* 
The  true  facts  in  the  case,  as  noticed  by  impartial  observers 

1  Frederick,  February  26;   Annapolis,  April  6;  Hagerstown,  April 
15;  Westminster,  May  4;  Cumberland,  May  12. 

2  Sun,  American,  June  2,  et  seq. 

3  Maryland  Union  (-Frederick),  June  4,  1857;  Sun,  June  2. 
*  Clipper,  June  2  and  4. 

70 


215]      Height  of  Know  Nothing  Success,  1857-1858.         71 

at  the  time,  were  that  members  of  both  parties  went  over, 
and  as  neither  side  had  any  special  scruples  against  "rough- 
ing" the  election,  it  can  easily  be  seen  how  disorder  re- 
sulted. 

While  these  turbulent  scenes  were  being  enacted  in  the 
Nation's  capital  the  last  National  Council  of  the  party  was 
being  held  in  the  city  of  Louisville.  The  presidential  cam- 
paign of  the  preceding  year  had  wrecked  the  party,  Mary- 
land being  the  only  State  carried  by  Fillmore.  Indeed,  for 
some  time  before,  the  disintegration  of  the  party  as  a 
national  organization  was  evident.  Massachusetts  and  the 
other  Northern  States  had  repudiated  the  slavery  platform,1 
and  the  party  had  fallen  almost  entirely  into  the  hands  of 
free  soilers  and  abolitionists,  while  in  Louisiana  and  Cali- 
fornia, almost  from  the  start,  the  party  had  discarded  the 
plank  in  opposition  to  the  Catholics.2  With  the  over- 
whelming defeat  in  the  national  canvass  in  1856  it  was  clear 
that  the  coherence  of  the  party  was  gone  and  the  National 
Council  passed  a  resolution  "that  the  American  party  in 
each  State  and  Territory  and  the  District  of  Columbia 
be  authorized  to  adopt  such  a  plan  of  organization  as  re- 
spectively may  be  best  suited  to  the  views  of  the  members 
of  the  party  in  their  several  localities."3 

In  the  meantime  the  party  in  Maryland  had  been  actively 
engaged  in  preparing  for  the  fall  election.  The  spoil 
was  indeed  an  inviting  one.  Governor,  Lottery  Commis- 
sioner, Comptroller,  Land  Commissioner,  members  of  the 
House  of  Delegates,  and  successors  to  those  Senators  who 
had  held  over  during  the  last  session.  By  law,  the  Gov- 
ernor in  this  year  was  to  be  elected  from  the  Eastern 
Shore,4  and  the  competition  between  the  various  candidates 

1  Haynes   in  American  Historical  Review,  October,   1897,  and  in 
New  England  Magazine,  September,  1896. 

2  American,  May  .5,  1855.  3  Sun,  June  5,  1857. 

4  The  Constitution  divided  the  State  into  three  Gubernatorial 
Districts,  as  follows:  I.  St.  Mary's,  Charles,  Calvert,  Prince  George's, 
Anne  Arundel,  Montgomery  and  Howard  Counties  and  the  City  of 


72         History  of  Know  Nothing  Party  in  Maryland.      [216 

was  quite  intense.  In  Baltimore  especially  the  rivalry  was 
very  keen  between  the  friends  of  Ricaud,  Hicks  and  Pur- 
nell,1  the  three  candidates  for  the  Gubernatorial  nomination, 
and  we  find  the  Clipper,  the  chief  paper  of  the  party,  mak- 
ing an  appeal  for  harmony.2  The  State  Convention  met  on 
July  22,  and  nominated  Hicks  for  Governor  and  Purnell 
for  Comptroller.3  Ricaud  was  afterwards  given  the  nomi- 
nation for  Congress  from  the  first  district.4  The  other 
nominees  were  D.  H.  McPhail  for  Lottery  Commissioner 
and  L.  W.  Seabrook  for  Land  Commissioner.5 

The  Democratic  Convention  met  a  week  later.  Not  only 
were  the  Democrats  divided  into  factions  through  the  riv- 
alry of  the  different  candidates,  but  the  party  was  also 
thrown  into  discord  by  the  contests  between  the  rotators 
and  anti-rotators,8  these  terms  being  used  to  represent 
rotation  in  office.  Baltimore  City  was  not  represented  at 
all  in  the  State  Convention  on  account  of  disturbances 
which  had  taken  place  at  the  City  Convention.7  This  State 
Convention  was  marked  by  unanimity  and  lack  of  enthusi- 
asm ;  no  formal  nominations  were  made,  but  candidates  for 
the  various  State  offices  were  recommended  to  voters  of  the 
party.8  The  Democratic  City  Convention  determined  to 
make  nominations  for  Congress  and  ward  nominations, 
but  no  others.9  A  number  of  the  members  of  the  Ameri- 
can party,  dissatisfied  with  the  course  of  that  party,  united 
with  some  of  the  Democrats  and  nominated  candidates  for 
local  offices  and  for  the  Legislature.10  The  Know  Noth- 

Baltimore.  II.  The  eight  counties  of  the  Eastern  Shore.  III.  Balti 
more,  Harford,  Frederick,  Washington,  Allegany  and  Carroll  Coun- 
ties. The  Governor  was  to  be  taken  from  each  of  these  districts  in 
rotation,  beginning  with  the  first  in  1853.  Constitution,  1850,  Art. 
II.,  sec.  5.  l  Maryland  Union  (Frederick),  June  18. 

3  Clipper,  June  22.  8  Sun,  American,  July  24. 

4  American,  August  6.  5  Ibid,  6  Sun,  May  25. 

7  Testimony  of  Joshua  Vansant,  "Maryland  Contested  Election,"  99. 

8  Sun,  American,  July  31.          9  Sun,  American,  September  4,  1857. 
10  Sun,  September  17  and  21,  American,  October  10.     "Maryland 

Contested  Election,"  115. 


217]      Height  of  Know  Nothing  Success,  1857-1858.         73 

ings  nominated  candidates  for  every  office  to  be  voted  for 
at  the  election.1 

The  State  election  was  preceded  by  the  municipal  elec- 
tion for  members  of  the  First  Branch  City  Council  on  Oc- 
tober 14.  On  a  small  degree  the  election  was  a  repetition 
of  that  of  the  year  before.  In  the  wards  controlled  by  the 
Know  Nothing  party  it  was  difficult  for  naturalized  citizens 
to  vote,  while  in  the  Eighth  Ward  the  native  voters  had  the 
same  difficulty  unless  they  were  known  to  be  Democrats.2 
The  police  seem  to  have  made  some  effort  to  put  a  stop  to 
the  rioting  at  least,  as  one  of  their  number  was  killed  while 
attempting  to  suppress  a  riot  started  by  the  Democrats  in 
the  Eighth  Ward,  and  several  were  wounded  in  protecting 
the  Democratic  headquarters  on  Federal  Hill  from  an  at- 
tack made  upon  it  by  the  Know  Nothings.3  The  combat- 
ants had  evidently  laid  in  munitions  of  war  in  anticipation 
of  a  disorderly  election,  as  the  police  captures  included  a 
swivel,  together  with  powder,  slugs  and  cartridges,  and  also 
thirty  carbines  and  three  rifles  from  one  of  the  engine 
houses.4  The  result  of  the  election  was  a  complete  victory 
for  the  Know  Nothings.  Compared  with  the  presidential 
election  in  the  preceding  year  the  Know  Nothing  vote  de- 
creased about  five  thousand  and  the  Democratic  vote  about 
seven  thousand.8 

Such  an  amount  of  disorder  having  occurred  at  the 
municipal  election,  there  was  apprehension  that  the  more 
important  election  for  State  officials  and  members  of  Con- 
gress would  result  in  even  greater  rioting  and  more  blood- 
shed than  had  yet  been  seen.  Moved  by  these  considera- 
tions,6 and  actuated  no  doubt  by  animosity  to  the  Know 
Nothing  party,  Governor  Ligon  determined  to  use  the 
executive  arm  of  the  State  to  insure  the  peace  of  the  com- 

1  Sun,  American,  August  6,  7  and  21;  September  n  and  15. 

2  American,  October  15.  3  Sun,  American,  October  15. 
*  Ibid.  5  American,  October  15. 

6  Governor's  Message,  1858,  23. 


74         History  of  Know  Nothing  Party  in  Maryland.      [218 

ing  election  in  Baltimore.1  Accordingly  the  Governor  pro- 
ceeded to  Baltimore,  and  on  October  27  he  addressed  the 
following  letter  to  the  Mayor,  inquiring  as  to  the  prepara- 
tions made  to  prevent  a  recurrence  of  the  disorder: 

BARNUM'S  HOTEL, 

Baltimore,  October  27,  1857. 
HON.  THOMAS  SWANN, 

Mayor  of  Baltimore. 

SIR: — Representations  from  a  large  number  of  respectable  citi- 
zens, of  the  conditions  of  things  in  this  city,  added  to  my  own 
convictions  of  my  constitutional  duty,  impose  upon  me  the  obliga- 
tion respectfully  to  consult  you,  as  Mayor  of  the  city,  as  to 
what  provision  should  be  made  by  you  to  guarantee  personal  secur- 
ity, and  the  free  exercise  of  suffrage  by  the  legal  voters  at  the 
approaching  election.  The  events  of  October,  1856,  both  at  the 
municipal  and  Presidential  elections,  and  the  violence  of  the  recent 
municipal  election,  which  practically  disfranchised  many  thousands 
of  the  qualified  native  and  naturalized  voters  of  this  city,  conclu- 
sively established  the  inadequacy  of  the  existing  city  police  to 
secure  the  elective  rights  and  the  personal  safety  of  the  voters. 
The  citizen  has  a  right  to  good  government.  He  surrenders  his 
individual  power  of  defense  and  pays  his  property  dues  in  consider- 
ation of  the  pledge  made  that  he  shall  enjoy  it;  and  I  am  resolute 
in  the  determination  to  exert  any  constitutional  power  to  fulfill  the 
guarantee. 

Subordinately  you  are  like  myself  sworn  in  your  sphere  to  put 
forth  your  powers  in  this  behalf,  and  I  have  come  to  this  city  to 
confer  with  you,  and  ascertain  what  provision  of  an  extraordinary 
character  you  propose  to  make  to  meet  apprehended  disorders  of 
a  character  like  those  which  have  heretofore  successfully  defied 
the  ordinary  police  force  of  the  city.  I  shall  be  most  happy  if  you 
can  assure  me  of  any  detailed  preparation  on  your  part  which  will 
allay  my  solicitude,  and  certify  me  that  the  citizens  may  not  have 
the  occasion  to  reproach  us  as  derelict  in  duty. 

It  will  never  do  for  a  great  commercial  metropolis  like  this  to 
be  dishonored  by  this  unchecked  violence  of  mobs,  and  it  is 
necessary  that  the  civil  power  should  at  once  bring  under  subjec- 
tion those  evil-minded  citizens  whose  acts  are  tarnishing  the  honor 
of  the  city  and  State,  and  destroying  the  prosperity  of  our  com- 
mercial, mechanical  and  manufacturing  interests.  Not  doubting 

1  Governor's  Message,  1858,  23. 


219]      Height  of  Know  Nothing  Success,  1857-1858.         75 

that  you  concur  with  me  in  these  sentiments,  and  will  appreciate 
the  sense  of  official  duty  from  which  I  invite  your  co-operation,  I 
have  addressed  you  this  letter  and  ask,  most  respectfully,  an  imme- 
diate reply. 

Very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

T.  WATKINS  LiGON.1 

The  Mayor,  however,  did  not  agree  with  the  Governor 
as  to  the  relative  spher^e  of  their  duties,  and  he  flatly  denied 
the  right  of  the  Governor  to  interfere.  Accordingly  he  at 
once  sent  him  the  following  letter  in  reply : 

MAYOR'S  OFFICE,  CITY  HALL, 

Baltimore,  October  28,  1857. 

To  His  EXCELLENCY,  T.  WATKINS  LIGON, 

Governor  of  Maryland. 

SIR: — I  have  had  the  honor  to  receive  your  letter  of  the  27th  inst., 
in  which  you  say  that  "representations  from  a  large  number  of  most 
respectable  citizens,  of  the  condition  of  things  in  this  city  added  to 
my  own  convictions  of  my  constitutional  duty  impose  upon  me 
the  obligation  respectfully  to  consult  you,  as  Mayor  of  the  city  of 
Baltimore,  as  to  what  provision  should  be  made  by  you  to  guaran- 
tee personal  security,  and  the  free  exercise  of  suffrage  by  the  legal 
voters  at  the  approaching  election." 

Your  letter  goes  on  to  indicate  duties  which  are  incumbent  upon 
us  both.  The  constitutional  sphere  assigned  to  you  as  Governor 
of  the  State  of  Maryland,  and  to  me  as  Mayor  of  the  city  of  Balti- 
more, is  believed  to  be  sufficiently  defined.  While  I  should  claim, 
by  virtue  of  my  commission,  the  privilege  of  the  initiative  in  any 
demand  which  I  might  consider  necessary  to  be  made  upon  your 
Excellency  for  your  aid  and  co-operation  in  preserving  the  peace  of 
the  city  and  the  rights  of  its  citizens,  I  do  not  object  at  any  time 
to  impart  to  you,  or  any  other  citizen,  the  fullest  information  in 
regard  to  matters  connected  with  the  government  of  the  city,  in 
which  the  public  might  feel  an  interest.  It  could  not  fail  to  excite 
my  surprise  that  in  a  letter  inviting  a  consultation  with  me,  your 
Excellency,  after  pronouncing  summary  judgment  upon  the  ineffi- 
ciency of  the  city  government,  should  have  thought  proper  to  refer 
to  the  events  of  the  municipal  and  Presidential  elections  of  1856, 

1  Governor's  Message,  33. 


76         History  of  Know  Nothing  Party  in  Maryland.     [220 

with  which,  as  Mayor  of  the  city,  I  had  no  official  connection;  and 
to  impress  upon  me  that  you  were  "resolute  in  the  determination 
to  use  your  constitutional  power  to  fulfill  the  guarantee  that  the 
citizen  is  entitled  to  good  government." 

In  your  reference  to  the  representations  you  have  received  from 
a  large  number  of  most  respectable  citizens,  your  Excellency  would 
seem  to  have  lost  sight  of  the  facts,  that  by  the  authority  under 
which  he  is  acting,  the  Mayor  of  the  city  is  made  the  judge  of 
and  is  responsible  for  the  completeness  and  efficiency  of  his  ar- 
rangements for  preserving  the  public  peace;  and  that  the  only 
official  source  of  information,  in  reference  to  the  plans  heretofore 
adopted,  was  in  him  alone,  and  the  officers  acting  under  him. 

As  to  what  your  Excellency  has  said  about  the  importance  of 
maintaining  law  and  order  in  a  great  commercial  metropolis  like 
this,  I  need  hardly  assure  you  that  no  man  has  labored  more 
faithfully  or  assiduously  than  I  have  done  towards  the  accomplish- 
ment of  this  end.  The  events  which  have  transpired  since  I  took 
charge  of  the  municipal  government,  and  the  murdered  and  wound- 
ed policemen,  who  have  fallen  in  the  late  effort  to  preserve  the 
peace  of  the  city  and  to  secure  to  the  citizens  the  free  exercise  of 
his  right  of  suffrage,  will  sufficiently  attest  the  activity  of  my  labors. 

My  preparations  at  the  last  municipal  election  were,  as  is  known, 
of  the  most  ample  character,  sufficiently  so  in  my  judgment,  to 
have  met  any  emergency.  That  individual  instances  of  complaint 
were  to  be  found,  is  not  to  be  wondered  at.  These  are  incident  to 
all  excited  elections  that  have  heretofore  taken  place  in  our  city. 

My  instructions  to  the  police  were  of  the  most  absolute  and 
impartial  character,  and  in  every  instance  of  decided  outbreak,  the 
efficiency  of  this  force  was  felt  and  acknowledged. 

At  the  election  in  November,  in  furtherance  of  the  object  which 
I  have  never  lost  sight  of,  in  addition  to  the  complement  of  officers 
assigned  to  the  stations  and  the  various  election  precincts,  acting 
immediately  in  concert  with  the  judges,  together  with  the  details 
by  which  they  will  be  regulated,  there  will  be,  what  may  be  deemed 
in  my  judgment,  a  competent  force  to  ensure  to  those  who  may 
be  entitled  to  vote,  the  free  and  untrammeled  exercise  of  their  right 
of  suffrage;  and  I  will  state  it  as  my  belief  that  unless  some  unfore- 
seen occurrence  should  ta1:e  place,  or  an  ungovernable  feeling 
should  be  excited  by  those  who  are  now  engaged  in  the  effort  to 
break  down  the  city  government,  that  the  election  will  proceed 
quietly  and  without  interruption. 

As  the  Mayor  of  the  city  of  Baltimore  I  hold  my  commission 
directly  from  the  people,  and  am  accountable  to  them  for  the  marr- 
ner  in  which  I  discharge  my  trust,  the  office  which  I  have  been 


221]      Height  of  Know  Nothing  Success,  1857-1858.         77 

called  upon  to  assume  was  confered  upon  me  without  solicitation, 
and  will  be  laid  down  whenever  it  will  be  made  to  appear  that  I 
have  lost  the  confidence  of  those  whom  it  has  been  my  highest  en- 
deavor to  serve.  I  can  recognize  "subordination"  to  no  other 
power  within  the  sphere  of  my  duty.  I  deemed  it  due  to  courtesy  to 
afford  your  Excellency  the  amplest  information  in  regard  to  the 
matters  to  which  you  refer  in  your  letter,  and  now  invite  from  you 
any  reliable  evidence  upon  which  I  can  legally  act,  of  a  combina- 
tion on  the  part  of  any  of  our  citizens  to  obstruct  the  laws  at  the 
coming  election.  But  while  I  am  thus  frank  in  foreshadowing  my 
plans  for  the  preservation  of  the  public  peace,  and  the  protection 
of  the  voter  by  every  means  at  my  disposal,  I  must  be  equally  so 
in  declining  to  recognize  any  joint  administration  of  the  affairs  of 
this  city.  The  powers  of  the  Mayor  are  believed  to  be  ample.  He 
has  his  resort,  in  case  of  emergency  to  the  civil  posse,  as  well  as  to 
the  military  arm,  which  like  the  former  is  placed  by  the  law  under 
his  control.  It  will  be  his  duty  to  use  his  best  endeavors  to  see 
that  every  citizen  is  protected  in  his  constitutional  rights,  and  that 
the  peace  of  the  city  is  preserved  by  every  means  at  his  disposal. 
If,  however,  it  should  be  attempted  to  introduce  a  power  in  the  city 
of  Baltimore  above  that  of  its  regularly  constituted  authorities,  or 
if  the  power  should  be  assumed  in  anticipation  of  a  state  of  things 
which  may  not  occur,  to  bring  the  military  in  contact  with  the 
people  on  the  day  of  election,  without  an  official  requisition  on  the 
part  of  the  local  authorities,  I  can  only  express  the  sincere  belief 
that  such  a  policy  might  seriously  endanger  the  peace  of  the  city, 
and  lead  to  consequences  which  it  should  be  the  duty  of  all  good 
citizens  to  endeavor  if  possible  to  avert.1 

With  great  respect,  I  have  the  honor  to  be,  your  obedient  servant, 

THOMAS  SWANN,  Mayor. 

Being  thus  rebuffed  by  the  Mayor  and  co-operation 
with  that  official  being1  out  of  the  question,  the  Governor 
proceeded  to  take  measures  of  his  own  for  the  desired  end. 
With  this  object  he  ordered  Major-General  George  H. 
Stuart,  of  the  First  Light  Division,  to  hold  his  command 
ready  for  service,  and  Major-General  John  Spear  Smith 
was  ordered  to  enroll  six  regiments  of  not  less  than  six 
hundred  men  each,  and  to  hold  them  in  readiness  for  ser- 
vice by  noon  of  the  Saturday  preceding  the  election.2  To 

Governor's  Message,  1858,  34,  *  Ibid.,  23,  28. 


78        History  of  Know  Nothing  Party  in  Maryland.      [222 

arm  and  equip  this  force  the  Governor  of  Virginia  was  ap- 
plied to  for  a  loan  of  two  thousand  muskets,  which  that 
official  at  once  had  forwarded  to  Baltimore.1  At  the  same 
time  the  Governor  issued  the  following  proclamation: 

PROCLAMATION. 

BY  THE  GOVERNOR  OF  MARYLAND: 

I,  T.  Watkins  Ligon,  Governor  of  the  State  of  Maryland,  hereby 
make  this  proclamation  to  the  citizens  of  Baltimore: 

Having  been  creditably  informed  by  a  large  and  respectable  num- 
ber of  citizens  of  Baltimore,  that  serious  apprehensions  are  enter- 
tained that  the  approaching  general  election  is  threatened  with  ex- 
treme violence  and  disorder  in  this  city,  sufficient  to  terrify  and  keep 
away  from  the  polls  many  peaceable  voters,  unless  the  civil  arm  is 
vigorously  interposed  for  their  protection,  and  being  fully  convinced 
of  the  justice  of  this  apprehension  from  events  of  the  election  of  1856, 
and  of  the  recent  municipal  elections  in  the  city,  I  have  felt  it  my  duty 
to  repair  to  this  city  to  fulfill  my  constitutional  obligations  to  afford 
to  the  citizens  the  faithful  observance  of  the  laws.  Accordingly  I 
have  addressed  the  Mayor  of  the  city  and  solicited  his  co-operation 
in  adequate  measures  for  the  protection  of  the  peace  of  the  city. 
So  far  I  have  received  from  him  no  satisfactory  response,  and  being 
resolved  to  be  involved  in  no  failure  of  duty  by  postponing  meas- 
ures which  can  only  be  efficiently  carried  out  under  the  circum- 
stances by  the  greatest  promptitude,  I  hereby  proclaim  to  the 
citizens  of  Baltimore,  that  in  virtue  of  my  powers  and  duties  under 
the  Constitution  and  laws  of  the  State,  I  have  directed  the  proper 
military  officers  to  enroll  and  hold  in  readiness  their  respective 
corps  for  active  service  at  once,  and  especially  on  the  approaching 
day  of  election;  and  I  have  issued  to  them  full  instructions  to 
preserve  the  peace  of  the  city,  and  to  secure  to  the  legal  voters 
their  rights  against  the  violence  and  intimidation  of  the  lawless 
ruffians  who  have  disgraced  the  city,  and  outraged  the  elective 
rights  in  the  recent  election. 

In  thus  acting  I  have  sought  merely  to  discharge  my  duty  and 
insure  to  the  citizen  the  right  pledged  to  him  by  the  Constitution 
and  the  laws,  and  I  earnestly  invoke  the  moral  support  and  aid  of 
all  good  citizens  who  value  their  government  and  its  privileges. 

Especially  do  I  forewarn  all  persons  against  all  illegal  conduct 

1  Governor's  Message,  1858,  30. 


223]     Height  of  Know  Nothing  Success,  1857-1858.         79 

in  the  obstruction  of   voters  and  admonish  them  of  the  serious 
responsibility  which  awaits  the  infraction  of  the  law. 

It  is  to  be  seen  if  republicanism  is  adequate  for  its  own  protec- 
tion. The  Governor  confidently  relies  on  the  loyalty  of  the  citizens 
of  this  great  metropolis,  and  in  the  hearty  readiness  with  which 
they  will  co-operate  in  the  vindication  of  the  city  and  State  from 
an  ignominious  submission  to  lawless  ruffians.  If  they  do,  all 
parties  will  rejoice  in  the  triumph  of  government,  and  every  good 
man  that  the  pledges  of  the  Constitution  are  not  an  empty  mockery. 
At  all  events,  the  Governor  will  do  his  duty,  if  constitutional  author- 
ity and  law  are  not  upheld  and  vindicated,  the  responsibility  must 
rest  elsewhere. 

But  there  is  no  reason  to  fear  any  adverse  result.  The  Governor 
will  not  question  the  fidelity  of  the  military  arm,  or  doubt  its 
ability  for  any  emergency  that  may  arise.  The  military  officers 
with  whom  I  have  consulted  express  their  willingness  to  serve  the 
State,  and  I  have  no  doubt  of  their  sufficiency  for  the  occasion; 
and  good  citizens  may  confidently  trust  that  their  title  to  a  consti- 
tutional government  will  be  fully  redeemed. 

Let  all  citizens,  therefore,  exercise  their  rights,  abstain  from  dis- 
order and  violence,  and  trust  in  the  genius  of  the  Constitution  and 
the  laws. 

Let  no  man  leave  the  precincts  of  his  own  ward,  unless  ordered 
to  do  so  by  competent  authority.  Thus  he  will  promote  the  fair- 
ness of  the  election  and  avoid  the  just  retribution  that  will  be 
dealt  to  those  vagrant  emissaries  of  disorder  who  wander  from 
polls  to  polls  for  the  purpose  of  illegal  voting,  and  to  deter  peace- 
able citizens  from  the  exercise  of  their  rights;  but  it  is  the  sincere 
hope  of  the  Governor,  that  the  majesty  of  the  law,  supported  by  the 
countenance  of  good  citizens,  will  make  the  ensuing  election  a 
signal  triumph  to  those  who  believe  in  the  capacity  of  the  people 
for  self-government. 

Given  under  my  hand,  at  the  city  of  Baltimore,  this  twenty- 
eighth  day  of  October,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord,  one  thousand 
eight  hundred  and  fifty-seven. 

T.  WATKINS  LIGON. 
By  the  governor. 

J.  PINKNEY,  Secretary  of  State. 

It  looked  as  if  the  dilemma  presented  itself  of  the  hind- 
rance of  the  right  of  suffrage  by  armed  ruffians  or  its 
exercise  under  the  protection  of  the  bayonet,  either  of 
which  showed  a  deplorable  state  of  affairs  among  a  free 
people. 


80        History  of  Know  Nothing  Party  in  Maryland.      [224 

The  authority  of  the  Governor  having  been  called  in 
•question,  both  the  Mayor  and  the  Governor  at  once  ob- 
tained legal  opinions  as  to  the  validity  of  their  conduct. 
Hardly  any  one  paper  in  Maryland  history  contains  such  an 
array  of  legal  talent  as  the  opinion  upholding  the  action  of 
the  Governor.  At  the  head  stood  Reverdy  Johnson,  who  had 
been  United  States  Senator  in  1845  and  Attorney-General 
of  the  United  States  in  1849,  and  who  was  again  United 
States  Senator  in  1863  and  minister  to  England  in  1868. 
Then  came  the  name  of  John  Nelson,  who  had  been  Attor- 
ney-General of  the  United  States  under  President  Tyler, 
and  minister  to  Naples  under  Jackson.  Following  these  was 
R.  N.  Martin.  Then  followed  John  V.  L.  McMahon,  the 
Maryland  historian,  and  also  the  author  of  the  charter  of 
the  Baltimore  and  Ohio  Railroad  Company.  Then  came 
the  names  of  Charles  F.  Mayer  and  I.  Nevett  Steele,  both 
of  whom  were  typical  of  the  old  Maryland  bar.  George 
William  Brown,  the  next  signer,  was  Mayor  of  Baltimore 
in  1860,  and  was  afterwards  Chief  Judge  of  the  Supreme 
Bench  in  Baltimore.  Three  more  eminent  lawyers,  F.  W. 
Brune,  Jr.,  J.  Mason  Campbell  and  S.  Teackle  Wallis  com- 
pleted the  list.  The  Mayor  did  not  have  quite  so  formid- 
able an  array  of  legal  talent,  his  action  being  upheld  in  an 
opinion  by  J.  Meredith,  William  Price  and  Thomas  S. 
Alexander. 

Having  completed  these  arrangements,  the  Governor 
again  endeavored  to  secure  the  co-operation  of  the  Mayor, 
and  for  this  purpose  he  wrote  to  him  as  follows : 

BARNUM'S  HOTEL, 

Baltimore,  October  28,  1857. 
HON.  THOMAS  SWANN, 

Mayor  of  Baltimore. 

SIR: — I  have  just  received  your  reply  to  my  letter  of  yesterday, 
and  beg  to  say  that  your  views  of  our  respective  powers  and  duties 
do  not  accord  with  my  own. 

Clothed  with  the  authority  to  see  that  the  laws  are  executed 
throughout  the  entire  State,  I  cannot  comprehend  how  the  city  of 


225]     Height  of  Know  Nothing  Success,  1857-1858.          81 

Baltimore  or  its  Mayor  recognizes  no  subordination  to  the  State 
Executive.  His  power  is  created  by  the  Constitution;  that  organic 
instrument  also  defines  his  duties.  Has  the  Mayor  of  Baltimore 
any  co-ordinate  position  in  that  charter,  or  are  not  his  authority 
and  that  of  his  city  the  mere  endowments  of  ordinary  legislation? 

I  am  mortified  and  pained  to  notice  that  spirit  in  a  municipal 
agent  of  the  Government,  which,  if  generally  adopted,  would  sub- 
vert the  whole  theory  of  our  institutions  and  end  in  jealous  rivalries 
among  the  chain  of  officials.  Under  your  view  it  would  seem  that 
any  officer  of  a  municipality  elected  by  the  people  became  by  that 
circumstance  subordinate  to  no  one,  and  only  accountable  to  them 
for  the  manner  in  which  "he"  discharged  "his  trust." 

I  will  not  indulge  in  any  protracted  repetition  of  an  error  which 
must  rather  be  the  growth  of  official  sensibility  than  of  mistaken 
conceptions  of  constitutional  position.  The  natural  sequel  of  such 
an  error  is  the  further  implication  that  my  powers  and  duties  are 
to  be  initiated  into  activity  by  the  discretion  of  municipal  subordi- 
nates. Do  you  thus  await  the  application  of  your  subordinates? 
If  not,  why  not?  Simply  because  you  are  sworn  to  see  the  laws 
executed,  and  whilst  in  general  you  confide  in  the  fulfilment  of  their 
duties,  you  still  hold  in  reserve  those  powers  of  supervision,  which 
are  made  necessary  by  the  fact  that  these  subordinates  may  not 
recognize  their  own  defaults,  and  their  serious  bearings  on  the 
general  welfare. 

Is  not  the  city  filled  with  clubs  of  lawless  and  violent  partisans, 
whose  very  appellatives  brandish  defiance  at  order,  and  make  the 
peaceable  prefer  to  surrender  rights  rather  than  claim  them  at  the 
risk  of  life.  Sir,  is  there  no  law  or  no  authority  somewhere  to 
curb  the  one  class  and  shield  the  other?  If  the  ordinary  civil  power 
of  the  city  is  insufficient,  what  is  the  inevitable  deduction?  Is 
it  not  better  that  you  should  admit  its  inadequacy,  and  be  cordially 
grateful  that  the  Constitution  has  supplied  other  powers,  and  per- 
mitted for  your  aid  that  Executive  to  interfere  who  has  not  been  at 
all  complicated  in  past  animosities? 

You  mention  in  your  communication  that  one  of  your  policemen 
was  "murdered"  at  the  recent  election.  What  guarantee  is  there 
that  a  similar  occurrence  may  not  happen  again  at  the  approaching 
election,  unless  more  adequate  arrangements  are  prepared  for  the 
suppression  of  lawlessness?  I  have  not  come  here  to  empower 
assaults  upon  your  police,  but  to  protect  them,  and  invigorate 
every  arm  that  will  be  sincerely  extended  in  behalf  of  individual 
security  and  constitutional  liberty.  And  I  feel  that  it  is  a  circum- 
stance of  just  mortification  that  a  State  Executive  who  has  re- 
paired to  a  city  in  which  the  press  has  not  hesitated  to  declare 


82        History  of  Know  Nothing  Party  in  Maryland.      [226 

that  the  recent  election  was  a  "mockery"  from  the  intimidation  to 
voters,  should  be  asked  by  its  municipal  head  to  furnish  him  with 
"any  reliable  evidence  upon  which  I  can  legally  act,  of  a  combina- 
tion on  the  part  of  any  of  our  citizens  to  obstruct  the  laws  at  the 
coming  election." 

Is  there  no  such  thing  as  a  fact?  Does  the  spirit  of  party  blind 
municipal  officers  to  that  condition  of  things  which  all  fair-minded 
citizens  recognize?  Are  there  not  daily  and  nightly  murders? 

It  is  to  be  deeply  regretted  that  we  should  be  at  all  separated  in 
the  performance  of  our  duties  for  ensuring  to  the  citizen  his  legal 
rights  which  violence  has  thus  overawed,  and  that  you  decline  to 
"recognize  any  joint  administration  of  the  affairs  of  this  city,"  when 
I  tender  you  the  Executive  co-operation.  This  fearful  responsi- 
bility you  have  taken.  I  believe  that  a  just-minded  community 
will  severely  censure  this  false  independency  as  not  consistent 
with  our  relative  official  positions  or  consonant  with  that  spirit 
of  union  which  should  unite  all  good  men  against  the  bad  and  law- 
less. But  however  this  may  be,  I  announce  to  you  respectfully, 
that  I  shall  nevertheless  see  that  the  laws  are  ''faithfully  executed" 
by  every  constitutional  power. 

I  feel  assured  that  this  community  and  the  State  will  see  in  this 
conduct  a  spirit  of  no  intrusive  interference,  but  rather  that  impera- 
tive duty  which  they  have  a  right  to  expect. 

Entertaining  none  but  the  most  friendly  feelings  to  yourself, 
personally,  and  desiring  that  successful  administration  by  you  of 
your  civic  duties  which  will  redound  to  the  credit  of  the  city 
and  State,  I  again  renew  my  solicitation  for  your  cheerful  co- 
operation with  the  Executive,  and  hope  that  on  a  revision  of  your 
opinion,  you  will  not  see  any  derogatory  subordination  which 
will  prevent  you,  as  the  municipal  head  of  the  city,  from  uniting 
in  a  harmonious  effort  to  assert  the  supremacy  of  the  laws.1 
Very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

T.  WATKINS  LIGON. 

The  Mayor,  however,  felt  no  disposition  to  co-operate, 
and  the  following  curt  note  sent  in  reply  showed  that  the 
Mayor  had  no  intention  of  prolonging  the  controversy : 

MAYOR'S  OFFICE,  CITY  HALL, 

Baltimore,  October  29,  1857. 
To  His  EXCELLENCY,  T.  WATKINS  LIGON, 

Governor  of  Maryland. 

SIR: — I  have  had  the  honor  to  receive  your  letter  of  yesterday's 
date,  by  the  hands  of  your  secretary. 

1  Governor's  Message,  1858,  41. 


227]       Height  of  Know  Nothing  Success,  1857-1858.         83 

I  feel  no  disposition  to  discuss  the  relative  powers  of  your  office 
and  mine,  or  the  other  points  referred  to  in  your  letter. 

Your  Excellency  has  thought  proper  to  visit  the  city,  and  upon 
representation  which  you  have  deemed  sufficient,  to  place  its  inhab- 
itants under  military  supervision.  The  responsibility  is  with  your 
Excellency. 

In  the  exercise  of  my  functions  I  shall  be  governed  by  the 
authority  of  the  law,  and,  I  trust,  by  the  support  of  the  entire  com- 
munity. 

With  great  respect,  I  have  the  honor  to  be, 

Your   obedient   servant, 
(Signed)  THOMAS  SWANN,  Mayor.1 

In  the  meantime  the  military  arrangements  of  the  Gov- 
ernor had  not  prospered,  and,  to  use  his  own  words,  "that 
class  of  citizens  from  whom  military  service  was  mainly 
to  be  expected  exhibited  first,  indecision,  and  at  last,  un- 
willingness to  respond  to  the  call  which  had  been  made 
upon  the  community."2  During  all  this  time  the  city  was 
in  a  high  state  of  excitement  over  the  prospective  use  of 
military  force.  The  situation,  indeed,  seemed  very  critical 
by  reason  of  the  conflict  between  the  city  and  the  State  au- 
thorities. To  overcome  this  danger  a  committee  of  citizens 
waited  upon  the  Mayor  to  persuade  him  to  make  arrange- 
ments to  satisfy  the  demand  of  the  Governor.  As  a  result 
the  Mayor  agreed  to  appoint  two  hundred  special  policemen 
from  the  members  of  both  parties,  although  he  would  not 
agree  to  appoint  half  the  number  from  among  the  Demo- 
crats.3 At  the  same  time  he  issued  the  following  proclama- 
tion : 

PROCLAMATION. 

BY  THE  MAYOR  OF  BALTIMORE: 

With  a  view  to  preserve  order  at  the  polls,  at  the  election  to  be 
held  in  this  city  on  the  fourth  of  November  next,  I  deem  it  my  duty 
to  issue  this  proclamation  to  the  citizens  of  Baltimore,  in  order 
that  the  position  of  the  city  government  may  not  be  misunderstood. 

The  following  order  will  be  strictly  observed: 

1  Governor's  Message,  1858,  24,  43.  2  Ibid.t  24. 

3  American,  November  2. 


84        History  of  Know  Nothing  Party  in  Maryland.      [228 

The  police  detailed  for  the  various  precincts  will  carry  out  all 
orders  directed  to  them  by  the  judge  or  judges  of  election,  and 
see  that  the  polls  are  kept  open  and  unobstructed. 

They  will  arrest  and  promptly  convey  to 'the  nearest  station  all 
intoxicated  or  disorderly  persons,  who  may  be  found  at  or  near  the 
polls. 

They  will  seize  and  convey  to  the  nearest  station  all  firearms 
which  may  be  exhibited  at  the  polls  or  used  to  intimidate  persons 
from  voting. 

They  will  arrest  all  carriages  passing  through  the  streets  with 
rioters  or  disorderly  persons,  and  order  them  to  be  driven  to  the 
station. 

On  the  occurrence  of  any  serious  disorder,  or  an  attempt  to  ob- 
struct the  polls  by  any  party  or  parties  whatsoever,  the  judges  of 
election  or  either  of  them  are  respectfully  requested  to  dispatch 
a  messenger  immediately  to  the  Mayor's  office  in  order  that  the 
same  may  be  promptly  arrested. 

The  citizens  generally  are  respectfully  requested  to  report  at  once 
any  case  of  delinquency  on  the  part  of  the  police. 

Omnibuses  will  be  in  readiness  at  the  Central  Station  to  convey 
an  adequate  force  to  any  part  of  the  city  where  a  disturbance  may 
take  place,  or  an  attempt  is  made  to  interfere  in  any  manner  with 
the  free  right  of  suffrage. 

The  police  are  instructed  to  see  that  all  drinking  houses  are 
closed  on  the  day  of  election,  and  to  report  all  who  refuse  to  obey 
this  order. 

There  will  be  ten  special  policemen,  in  addition  to  the  regular 
force,  who  will  be  commissioned  by  the  Mayor  to  lend  their  aid  in 
preserving  order  at  the  polls. 

As  Chief  Magistrate  of  the  city  of  Baltimore,  I  call  upon  all  good 
and  order-loving  citizens  to  co-operate  with  me  in  carrying  out  the 
details  of  this  proclamation. J 

THOMAS  SWANN,  Mayor. 

These  arrangements  having  been  communicated  to  the 
Governor,  and  the  citizens  committee,  some  of  whom  had 
signed  the  opinion  affirming  the  legality  of  the  Governor's 
action,  having  informed  the  Governor  that  they  thought 
the  arrangements  of  the  local  authorities  sufficient,2  the 
Governor  gave  way,  and  in  a  new  proclamation  renounced 
all  intention  of  using  military  force : 

1  Governor's  Message,  1858,  44.  *  Ibid.,  45. 


229]      Height  of  Know  Nothing  Success,  1857-1858.        85 


PROCLAMATION. 

BY  THE  GOVERNOR  OF  MARYLAND: 

I,  T.  Watkins  Ligon,  Governor  of  the  State  of  Maryland,  hereby 
make  this  proclamation  to  the  citizens  of  Baltimore: 

Being  satisfied  that  the  extraordinary  and  additional  arrange- 
ments made  by  the  Mayor  of  the  city  of  Baltimore,  and  with 
which  he  has  more  fully  acquainted  me,  will  afford  to  all  citizens 
personal  protection,  and  a  fairness  and  impartiality  calculated  to 
remove  all  distrust  as  to  the  freedom  of  the  elective  franchise  on 
Wednesday  next,  and  the  object  of  my  official  intervention  having 
thus,  in  my  own  judgment,  and  in  that  of  a  large  number  of  re- 
spectable citizens  whom  I  have  consulted,  been  secured. 

I  do  hereby  proclaim  and  give  notice  that  I  do  not  contemplate 
the  use,  upon  that  day,  of  the  military  force  which  I  have  heretofore 
ordered  to  be  enrolled  and  organized. 

And  I  do  hereby  call  upon  and  solemnly  enjoin  all  good  citizens 
to  unite  with  and  support  the  constituted  authorities  of  the  city 
in  maintenance  of  order  and  the  law. 

Given  under  my  hand,  at  the  city  of  Baltimore,  this  first  day 
of  November,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  eight  hundred 
and  fifty-seven. * 

T.  WATKINS  LIGON. 
By  the  Governor, 

J.  PINKNEY,  Secretary  of  State. 

The  undersigned,  having  been  called  by  his  Excellency,  the  Gov- 
ernor of  Maryland,  into  consultation  with  him,  touching  the  meas- 
ures that  ought  to  be  adopted  for  supporting  the  laws  of  the  city 
of  Baltimore,  at  the  approaching  election,  and  we  having  been 
made  fully  acquainted  with  all  the  facts  and  circumstances  which 
have  attended  the  subject,  have  fully  concurred  in  all  the  views  and 
measures  which  he  has  felt  it  to  be  his  duty  to  take,  from  first  to 
last. 

W.  H.  D.  C.  WRIGHT, 
ROB'T  CLINTON  WRIGHT. 

Baltimore,  November  i,  1857. 

With  the  two  following  brief  notes  ended  an  incident 
which  at  one  time  threatened  to  lead  to  a  serious  conflict 

1  Governor's  Message,  1858,  4.6. 


86         History  of  Know  Nothing  Party  in  Maryland.     [230 

between  the  Governor  of  the  State  and  the  Mayor  of  Balti- 
more: 

Baltimore,  November  i,  1857. 
To  THE  HON.  THOMAS  SWANN, 

Mayor  of  Baltimore. 

SIR: — It  is  a  matter  of  extreme  gratification  to  me  that  you  have 
communicated  to  me  the  extraordinary  and  additional  arrangements 
by  which  you  propose  to  preserve  order  at  the  coming  election. 
Seeing  in  these  the  composition  of  a  special  police,  which  affords  to 
all  citizens  the  promise  of  personal  protection,  and  also  of  a  fair- 
ness and  impartiality  calculated  to  remove  all  distrust  as  to  the  free- 
dom of  the  elective  franchise  on  that  day,  it  gives  me  great  pleasure 
tp  say  that  I  now  contemplate  no  use  of  the  military  force  which 
I  have  ordered  to  be  enrolled  and  organized. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

T.  WATKINS  LicoN.1 

MAYOR'S  OFFICE,  CITY  HALL, 

Baltimore,  November  i,  1857. 
To  His  EXCELLENCY,  T.  WATKINS  LIGON, 

Governor  of  Maryland. 

SIR: — I  have  the  honor  to  receive  your  letter  of  this  date.  It 
affords  me  pleasure  to  know  that  your  Excellency  is  satisfied  with 
my  arrangements  for  preserving  order  at  the  coming  election.  The 
assurance  which  you  have  given  me  that  you  do  not  now  contem- 
plate the  use  of  the  military  force,  which  you  have  ordered  to  be 
enrolled  and  organized,  enables  me  to  anticipate  a  quiet  and  peace- 
able election,  which,  I  am  sure,  will  be  as  agreeable  to  your  Excel- 
lency as  myself. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  great  respect,  etc., 

THOMAS  SWANN,  Mayor.2 

The  withdrawal  of  the  Governor  quieted  the  excitement 
to  some  extent,  and  the  election  was  marked  by  neither 
riot  nor  bloodshed.3  But  while  these  factors  were  absent, 
fraud  and  intimidation  were  carried  on  in  a  manner  only 
equalled  by  the  later  elections  of  this  same  party.  The 
police  made  no  attempt  to  protect  voters,  and  when  men 
were  assaulted  the  police  either  arrested  them  or  took 

1  Governor's  Message,  45.  2  Ibid.,  46. 

3  Sun,  American,  November  5,  1857. 


231]      Height  of  Know  Nothing  Success,  1857-1858.         87 

them  aside  and  endeavored  to  persuade  them  to  leave  the 
polls.1  The  assailants  in  almost  every  case  were  not  even 
molested,  and  one  officer  who  did  try  to  protect  the  voters 
in  their  exercise  of  the  suffrage  found  himself  recalled  to 
the  station  house  as  a  result  of  his  pains.2  The  special 
police  appointed  by  the  Mayor  found  themselves  powerless 
when  unsupported  by  the  regular  officers,  and  even  in 
some  cases  they  were  told  to  leave  the  polls,  as  they  had  no 
business  there.3  The  result  was  that  before  the  day  was 
over  many  of  them  tendered  their  resignations  to  the 
Mayor.4 

At  this  election  the  Know  Nothings  again  made  use  .of 
the  device  they  had  learned  from  the  Democrats  in  the 
municipal  election  in  1854.  The  Know  Nothing  ticket 
had  a  red  or  pink  stripe  down  the  back  and  the  voter  that 
did  not  have  this  ticket  had  a  hard  time  in  getting  to  the 
window.5  The  roughs  at  the  polls  had  a  regular  system  of 
signals  to  indicate  the  reception  to  be  accorded  to  the 
voter.  As  the  voter  approached  the  polls  he  was  solicited 
by  the  party  workers,  and  if  he  voted  the  Know  Nothing 
ticket  they  would  cry  out:  "Clear  the  way,  let  the  voters 
come  up."  Having  thus  been  vouched  for  he  was  allowed 
to  vote.  But  if  he  declined  the  red-striped  ticket,  they 
would  shout:  "Meet  him  on  the  ice,"  and  then  the  voter 
was  generally  pushed  away  from  the  window  and  into  the 
street.6 

The  polling  places  were  also  situated  in  many  cases  away 
from  the  most  populous  parts  of  the  ward  and  in  the  neigh- 
borhood of  political  headquarters  and  disreputable  grog 
shops.7  At  one  polling  place  a  cannon  was  mounted  at 
the  curb  as  a  dire  menace  to  the  opponents  of  the  Know 
Nothings.8  Not  only  was  intimidation  resorted  to,  but  a 

1 "  Maryland  Contested  Election,"  29. 

2 Ibid.,  113  and  114.  3 Ibid.,  37. 

4  American,  November  5.         5  "Maryland  Contested  Election, ' '  54. 

6 Ibid.,  107.  ''Ibid.,  34,  20,  815.  8 Ibid.,  20. 


88         History  of  Know  Nothing  Party  in  Maryland.     [232 

more  positive  means  of  fraud  was  practiced  by  minors  and 
repeaters.1  Indeed  in  many  cases  the  judges,  knowing  the 
votes  to  be  illegal,  received  the  ballots,  and  then  threw  them 
on  the  floor  as  the  only  means  of  getting  rid  of  these  im- 
portunate voters.2  The  Eighth  ward  the  Know  Nothings 
seem  to  have  tacitly  surrendered  to  their  opponents,  and 
the  latter  did  not  hesitate  to  drive  the  Know  Nothing 
ticket  holder  away.8  That  fraud  was  practiced  here  is 
evident  from  the  fact  that  the  total  vote  in  1860  was  only 
1266,  while  the  Democratic  vote  in  1857  was  2135.  The 
absence  of  serious  riot  is  probably  due  to  the  fact  that  this 
ward  was  left  in  undisputed  sway  of  the  Democrats. 

With  such  intimidation,  it  is  almost  needless  to  state 
the  result  of  the  election.  Hicks,  the  Know  Nothing  candi- 
date for  Governor,  received  in  the  city  17,850  votes,  as 
against  8211  for  his  opponent,  Groome.  It  was  well  for 
him  that  the  city  gave  him  such  a  majority,  for  the  rest  of 
the  State  gave  his  opponent  a  clear  majority  of  1179.  The 
other  State  officials  and  four  Congressmen  out  of  six  were 
also  elected  by  the  Know  Nothings.4  The  Legislature  also 
continued  in  the  control  of  the  Know  Nothings,  the  latter 
having  a  clear  majority  in  both  houses.5 

An  election  conducted  in  such  a  manner  was  not  to 
pass  unquestioned.  On  November  25,  Mr.  William  Pinck- 
ney  Whyte,  the  Democratic  candidate  for  Congress  in  the 
third  district,  notified  his  successful  opponent,  Mr.  J.  Mor- 
rison Harris,  of  his  intention  to  contest  the  election.6  On 
February  25,  1858,  the  papers  in  the  case  were  presented 
to  the  House  of  Representatives  and  referred  to  the  Com- 
mittee on  Elections.7  After  considering  the  thousand 
printed  pages  of  testimony  offered,  the  committee  reported 

1  "Maryland  Contested  Election,"  127,  128.  2 Ibid.,  25. 

3  Ibid.,  876.     *Vide  election  returns  in  "  Tribune  Almanac,  1858." 
5 Senate:    Know    Nothings    15,    Democrats    7.       House:    Know 
Nothings  44,  Democrats  29. 
6"  Maryland  Contested  Election,"  i. 
7  Cong.  Globe,  35th  Congress,  ist  Session,  102. 


233]      Height  of  Know  Nothing  Success,  1857-1858.         89 

unanimously  in  favor  of  denying  the  seat  to  Mr.  Whyte,1 
but  by  a  strict  party  vote  of  five  to  four  it  recommended 
that  the  election  be  declared  void  and  the  seat  vacant.2 
On  December  15,  1858,  the  report  was  presented  to  the 
House.8  The  House  was  Democratic,  but  some  of  the 
Southern  members  were  afraid  to  unseat  the  sitting  mem- 
ber, as  the  Know  Nothing  leaders  said  that  the  contestant 
could  not  be  elected,  and  that  if  the  sitting  member  was 
ousted  an  anti-slavery  man  would  be  sent  from  the  district. 
The  Kansas  question  was  then  uppermost,  and  the  Southern 
men  were  endeavoring  to  have  Kansas  admitted  under  the 
Lecompton  Constitution.  The  threat  of  the  Know  Noth- 
ing leaders  had  the  desired  effect,  and  when  the  question 
came  up  in  the  House  the  whole  subject  was  ordered  laid  on 
the  table  by  a  vote  of  one  hundred  and  six  to  ninety-seven.4 
and  no  further  action  was  taken  upon  it.  The  Southern 
Democrats  thus  showed  that  they  were  willing  to  sacrifice 
everything,  even  the  freedom  of  elections,  the  very  founda- 
tion of  republican  government,  in  order  to  further  the  in- 
terests of  slavery.  In  justice  to  Mr.  Harris  it  should  be 
stated  that  neither  Mr.  Whyte  nor  the  Committee  on  Elec- 
tions connected  him  in  any  way  with  the  fraud  and  disorder.5 
Later  in  the  sesion  the  House  allowed  Mr.  Whyte  pay  and 
mileage  up  to  the  time  the  case  was  disposed  of.  This  how- 
ever, was  not  accepted. 

Henry  P.  Brooks  also  contested  the  seat  of  Henry  Winter 
Davis,  in  the  Fourth  Congressional  District.  The  con- 
testant did  not  claim  the  seat,  but  merely  asked  that  it  be 
declared  vacant,  and  asked  that  the  House  make  a  special 
investigation  of  his  statements.6  This  the  House  refused  to 


1  American,  June  7,  1858.  2  Ibid. 

3  Cong.  Globe,  35th  Congress,  2d  Session,  102. 

4  Cong-.  Globe,  Part  I,  ad  Session,  35th  Congress,  102-3,  I2°- 

5  "  Report  of  the  Committee  on  Elections,"  38. 

6Bartlett:   "  Contested  Election  Case  in  Congress."    House  Mis- 
cellaneous Documents,  No.  57,  38th  Congress,  2d  Session,  245. 


90         History  of  Know  Nothing  Party  in  Maryland.      [234 

do,  declaring  that  the  contestant  must  take  his  testimony 
before  a  local  magistrate  as  provided  for  by  the  Act  of  I85I.1 

The  defeated  candidates  for  the  House  of  Delegates  from 
Baltimore  also  contested  the  seats  of  the  members  as  re- 
turned by  the  election  officials.  On  January  21,  1858,  the 
House  received  the  memorial,-  and  after  refusing  to  have 
it  printed  in  any  form,  referred  it  to  the  Committee  on 
Elections.3  On  February  16  the  committee  reported  against 
any  investigation  of  the  election  in  Baltimore,  saying 
that  all  the  trouble  was  caused  by  the  action  of  the  Gov- 
ernor.4 The  minority  of  the  committee  made  a  dissenting 
report,5  but  the  report  of  the  majority  was  adopted  by  the 
House  by  a  strict  party  vote  of  thirty-nine  to  twenty-six.6 

The  second  Legislature  controlled  by  the  Know  Nothing 
party  met  at  Annapolis  on  January  6,  1858.  The  previous 
Legislature  had  failed  to  carry  out  the  demands  of  the  party, 
and  consequently  many  new  faces  were  seen  upon  the 
Know  Nothing  side  of  the  House  of  Delegates.  In  fact, 
there  were  only  two  members  of  the  dominant  party  who 
had  also  been  members  at  the  previous  session.  The  re- 
mainder were  mainly  raw  and  inexperienced,  very  few  of 
the  minority  ever  having  had  any  legislative  experience.7 
The  House  organized  by  electing  J.  Summerfield  Berry, 
of  Baltimore  County,  as  Speaker,8  and  the  Senate  chose 
as  its  presiding  officer  Edwin  H.  Webster,  of  Harford 
County.9 

At  this  session,  as  at  the  previous  one,  the  Governor's 
message  was  the  occasion  of  the  first  disturbance  of  the 
even  tenor  of  legislation.  The  Governor  committed  the 
indiscretion  of  giving  his  message  to  the  newspapers  before 
it  had  been  presented  to  the  House.10  Accordingly  when 

^artlett:  "Contested  Election  Case  in  Congress."     House  Mis- 
cellaneous Documents,  38th  Congress,  id  Session,  246. 
*  House  Journal,  1858,  101.  *  Ibid.,  102.  *  Ibid.,  396. 

5 Ibid.,  397.  6 Ibid.,  399.        ^American,  March  13,  1858. 

8  House  Journal,  1858,  6.  9  Senate  Journal,  1858,  4. 

10  Sun,  January  9,  1858. 


235]      Height  of  Know  Nothing  Success,  1857-1858.        91 

the  message  was  presented  to  the  House,  on  January  8, 
that  body  refused  to  have  it  read  and  ordered  it  to  lie  on 
the  table  by  a  strict  party  vote  of  forty-one  to  twenty-eight.1 
At  the  next  meeting  of  the  House  the  message  was  read,2 
but  the  temper  of  the  House  was  manifested  when  it  ordered 
only  one  hundred  copies  to  be  printed  for  the  use  of  the 
members.3  Not  until  February  17  were  five  thousand 
copies,  together  with  the  correspondence  between  the 
Mayor  and  the  Governor,  ordered  to  be  printed.4 

The  strict  party  vote  on  the  question  of  reading  the  mes- 
sage showed  that  it  was  not  the  dignity  of  the  House  which 
had  been  offended,  but  merely  the  feeling  of  the  majority. 
This  was  caused,  not  by  the  premature  publication  of  the 
message,  but  by  the  reference  in  it  to  the  conduct  of  elec- 
tions in  Baltimore.  Under  the  heading,  "Lawlessness  in 
Baltimore,"  the  Governor  devoted  twelve  pages  of  his  mes- 
sage to  an  account  of  the  recent  election  in  Baltimore,  and 
his  own  futile  efforts  to  exercise  the  authority  of  the  State 
Executive  for  the  preservation  of  the  peace.5  Commenting 
upon  the  election  in  the  metropolis  of  the  State,  he  said : 
"A  form  of  suffrage  was  observed  under  circumstances 
defiant  of  the  execution  of  the  laws.  Riot  in  its  vociferous 
and  most  formidable  aspect  did  not  occur,  but  I  was 
made  the  recipient  of  almost  ceaseless  complaints  of  out- 
rages, violence  and  organized  ruffianism  at  the  polls, 
whereby  multitudes  of  citizens,  native  and  naturalized,  were 
deterred  from  voting.6  *  *  * 

"  *  *  *  Before  I  leave  this  branch  of  the  subject,  I 
must  take  occasion  to  remark,  that  under  a  sense  of  duty, 
not  left  to  my  discretion,  I  have  issued  commissions  to  all 
those  persons  who  appear  by  the  official  returns  from  the 
city  of  Baltimore  to  have  been  elected  to  the  various  offices. 
At  the  same  time  I  record  my  deliberate  opinion  that  the 


1  House  Journal,  1858,  19.  *  Ibid.,  27. 

3  Ibid.,  29.  4  Ibid.,  407  and  408. 

5  Governor's  Message,  1858,  21,  et  seq.  6  Ibid.,  27. 


92         History  of  Know  Nothing  Party  in  Maryland.     [236 

election  was  fraudulently  conducted;  that  in  the  exclusion 
of  thousands  of  people  from  the  polls,  there  has  been  no 
expression  of  the  popular  will;  and  that  the  whole  of  the 
returns  from  this  city  are  vicious,  without  a  decent  claim 
to  official  recognition  anywhere,  and  in  all  their  charac- 
ter a  gross  insult  to  our  institutions  and  laws,  and  a  most 
offensive  mockery  of  the  great  principles  of  political  inde- 
pendence and  popular  suffrage."1 

Such  a  denunciation  of  the  election  by  which  a  number 
of  the  members  of  the  House  had  been  returned  could  not 
fail  to  stir  up  bad  feeling.  On  the  day  after  the  message 
was  read  a  preamble  and  resolutions  were  offered,2  censur- 
ing the  Governor  for  his  interference.  The  allegations  of 
the  Governor  were  denounced  as  a  "libel  upon  the  people 
of  that  great  commercial  metropolis  of  our  State,"3  and  the 
interposition  of  the  Governor  characterized  as  "ill-advised, 
reckless,  unnecessary,  and  dangerous  to  the  peace  of  the 
city."4  The  expression  used  in  the  Governor's  proclama- 
tion, "let  no  man  leave  the  precincts  of  his  own  ward,"  was 
pronounced  "without  authority  of  law,  a  flagrant  invasion 
of  that  personal  liberty  so  dear  to  every  American  heart, 
and,  sustained  as  it  was  by  such  an  exhibition  of  intention 
to  use  military  force,  was  an  act  of  despotism  unparalleled 
in  the  annals  of  our  country."  5 

When  the  resolutions  came  up  the  debate  over  them  was 
long  and  angry.  On  the  night  of  January  22,  the  debate 
was  particularly  exciting  and  acrimonious,  and  the  House 
was  in  session  until  i  o'clock  in  the  morning.  The  House 
was  in  committee  of  the  whole,  when  one  of  the  minority 
persisted,  in  spite  of  the  orders  of  the  chairman,  in  inter- 
rupting a  member  who  was  giving  vent  to  some  very  severe 
denunciations  of  the  Governor.  The  member  still  con- 
tinuing his  interruption,  the  chairman,  in  the  excitement, 
left  the  chair  and  advanced  upon  the  member  and  declared 


1  Governor's  Message,  1858,  28.  *  House  Journal,  1858,  37. 

9 Ibid.,  39.  ^  Ibid.  ''Ibid. 


237]     Height  of  Know  Nothing  Success,  1857-1858.          93 

that  he  would  compel  him  to  take  his  seat.  A  scene  of 
wild  disorder  and  confusion  followed.  Many  of  the  mem- 
bers were  known  to  be  armed,  and  it  seemed  as  if  serious 
trouble  would  ensue.  Just  at  this  moment  the  Speaker 
sprang  into  the  chair,  declared  the  committee  dissolved, 
and  called  the  House  to  order.1  The  previous  question 
having  been  called,  the  resolutions  were  passed  by  a  strict 
party  vote.2  The  Senate  also  adopted  the  resolutions  by 
a  party  vote  of  ten  to  four.3 

The  dominant  party  let  no  opportunity  escape  for  de- 
nouncing the  action  of  the  Governor.  The  House  com- 
mittee on  the  Contingent  Fund  censured  the  Governor  for 
his  expenditure  of  $1712.44  for  freight  on  the  muskets  bor- 
rowed from  the  Governor  of  Virginia,  and  for  the  pur- 
chase of  cartridges.4  The  majority  of  the  committee  pro- 
tested against  such  a  use  of  the  State's  money,5  but  as  the 
Governor  was  the  sole  judge  of  such  expenditures,  the 
House  could  take  no  further  action.  Governor  Hicks,  in 
his  inaugural  address  on  January  13,  1858,  also  took  oc- 
casion to  pay  his  respects  to  his  predecessor  for  his  action 
in  the  election  in  Baltimore.6 

Although  the  membership  of  the  House  had  been  almost 
entirely  changed,  yet  the  majority  in  the  House,  just  as  in 
the  preceding  one,  seemed  to  care  very  little  for  the  pet 
principles  of  the  party.  Indeed,  public  sentiment  seems  to 
have  changed.  Whereas,  in  the  Legislature  of  1856  num- 
erous petitions  had  been  presented  praying  for  the  sup- 
pression of  convents  and  nunneries,7  at  this  session  the  only 
petition  of  this  kind  was  from  the  Rev.  A.  B.  Cross,  who 
had  been  so  active  in  the  previous  agitation.8  The  peti- 
tion was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Judiciary,8  from 

1  "Baltimore,  Past  and  Present,"  190,  192. 

*  House  Journal,  121,  et  seq.  3  Senate  Journal,  1858,  152. 

*  House  Journal,  1858,  477,  House  Document,  L,  i.         5  Ibid.,  2. 
6  Vide  Inaugural  Address,  10-12. 

T  House  and  Senate  Journals,  1856,  passim. 

8  House  Journal,  1858,  281.  •  Ibid.,  282. 


94         History  of  Know  Nothing  Party  in  Maryland.      [238 

whicH  it  never  emerged.  Nor  did  a  bill  to  prohibit  the 
State  courts  from  granting  naturalization  certificates  share 
a  much  better  fate.  The  bill  got  as  far  as  its  second  read- 
ing, but  a  motion  to  suspend  the  rules  for  its  third  reading 
was  lost,1  and  the  bill  was  heard  of  no  more. 

If  the  Legislature  was  lax  in  these  original  precepts  of 
the  party,  it  was  not  at  all  slow  in  passing  a  measure  which 
might  look  to  a  perpetuation  of  the  power  of  the  party. 
This  measure  was  to  submit  to  the  voters  the  question  of 
calling  a  convention  to  frame  a  new  Constitution.2  While 
the  existing  Constitution  had  been  recognized  as  not  being 
all  that  could  be  desired,3  yet  there  had  been  no  agitation 
of  the  subject  during  the  preceding  campaign,  nor  had  it 
been  demanded  by  the  people.  The  Constitution  provided 
that  after  each  census  the  question  of  calling  a  Constitu- 
tional Convention  should  be  submitted  to  a  vote  of  the  peo- 
ple.4 This  would  bring  up  the  question  in  the  regular 
course  of  events  in  1861,  and  after  seven  years'  service  it 
seemed  strange  to  call  a  new  convention  within  three  years 
of  the  regular  time. 

The  real  object  of  the  proposed  convention,  it  was 
charged,  was  to  provide  offices  for  the  Know  Nothings  by 
concentrating  the  appointing  power  in  the  hands  of  the 
Governor.5  It  was  also  charged  that  representation  was  to 
be  placed  exclusively  upon  a  basis  of  population.  This 
would  give  Baltimore  one-third  of  the  Legislature,  and  the 
clubs  in  that  city  were  to  ensure  the  supremacy  of  the  Know 
Nothings.6  It  was  further  stated  that  the  independence  of 
the  judiciary  was  to  be  attacked,  and  that  the  removal  of 
the  seat  of  government  to  Baltimore  was  also  contemplated.7 
The  suddenness  of  the  movement  was  enough  in  itself  to 
throw  suspicion  upon  it. 

1  House  Journal,  1858,  657.  2  Ibid.,  546. 

3  "The  Reform  Conspiracy"— Letters  by  E.  W.  Belt,  22. 

*  Constitution  1850,  Art.  XL 

5  Maryland  Union  (Frederick),  March  n  and  May  20,  1858. 

6 Ibid.,  March  n.  7  Ibid.,  May  13  and  20. 


239]      Height  of  Know  Nothing  Success,  1857-1858.        95 

On  March  i  and  2,  the  bill  was  taken  up  in  the  House, 
and  the  action  on  the  amendments  offered  seemed  to  verify 
the  charge  of  its  opponents.  An  amendment  providing 
that  the  convention  should  not  be  held  unless  "a  majority 
of  the  actual  legal  voters  of  the  State  shall  vote  'for'  the 
said  convention;  and  the  said  majority  shall  be  computed 
with  reference  to  the  total  vote  cast  for  Governor  in  the 
year  1857  as  a  standard,"  was  voted  down  by  a  vote  of 
twenty-two  to  thirty-three.1  Further  amendments2  deny- 
ing to  the  convention  the  power  to  change  the  basis  of 
representation  of  the  counties  and  of  the  city  of  Baltimore 
in  the  General  Assembly;3  denying  the  pOAver  to  alter  any 
part  of  the  existing  Constitution  giving  the  people  the  right 
to  elect  the  principal  officers  in  the  several  departments  of 
the  Government;4  and  one  denying  any  power  to  remove 
the  capital  from  Annapolis  were  all  voted  down  by  a  party 
vote.5  An  amendment  proposing  that  the  convention 
should  have  no  power  to  amend  the  guarantees  of  reli- 
gious liberty  as  set  forth  in  the  Constitution  and  Bill  of 
Rights  was  also  rejected  by  a  party  vote  of  twenty  to  thiry- 
nine.6 

The  House  had  denied  the  right  of  the  Legislature  to 
restrict  the  convention  in  the  exercise  of  its  power,  but  it 
was  not  consistent,  to  say  the  least,  when  it  adopted  an 
amendment  declaring  that  the  convention  should  have  no 
authority  to  change  any  provisions  of  the  existing  Consti- 
tution which  recognized  the  institution  of  slavery  and  the 
relation  of  master  and  slave.7  The  bill  with  this  amend- 
ment passed  the  House  by  a  vote  of  forty-four  to  twenty- 
three.8 

In  the  Senate  the  same  amendments  and  a  few  additional 
ones  denying  the  right  of  any  further  lottery  grants,9  and 

1  House  Journal,  1858,  658.  2  Ibid.,  673,  et  seq. 

3  Ibid.,  67 5.  *  Ibid.,  676. 

5  Ibid.,  677.  6  Ibid.,  678  and  679. 

1  Ibid.,  673,  674.  8  Ibid.,  806. 

9  Senate  Journal,  1858,  533. 


96         History  of  Know  Nothing  Party  in  Maryland.     [240 

providing  that  no  life  terms  should  be  created  were  all  re- 
jected by  a  party  vote.1  The  bill  was  then  passed  by  a 
vote  of  fifteen  to  six,2  one  of  the  Know  Nothing  Senators 
voting  against  it."  3 

This  was  the  only  piece  of  legislation  of  any  importance 
passed  during  the  entire  session.  The  legislation  was 
almost  entirely  in  the  nature  of  private  and  local  bills.  The 
inexperience  of  most  of  the  members  caused  a  great  loss 
of  time  in  determining  the  rules,  and  much  time  was  lost 
in  the  quarrels  between  the  majority  and  the  minority.4 
Nor  were  these  the  only  quarrels,  as  there  was  friction 
within  the  dominant  party.  The  Clipper,  the  Know  Noth- 
ing organ  in  Baltimore,  expected  to  get  the  State  printing, 
and  with  that  end  in  view  set  up  a  printing  office  at  An- 
napolis. But  the  printing  went  elsewhere,  and  the  Clipper 
charged  that  "the  man  who  furnished  the  barrel  of  whiskey 
which  defeated  the  Clipper  for  the  printing  of  the  House 
never  received  a  red  cent."5  It  was  no  wonder  that  the 
Clipper  rejoiced  when  the  Legislature  adjourned  and  gave 
"thanks  to  the  Creator  of  all  good  that  we  have  just  passed 
from  an  epoch  shrouded  in  pestilential  vapors — blunting 
the  edge  of  our  brightest  hopes  and  spreading  a  pall  over 
the  future  energy  and  justice  of  State  Legislatures."6 

The  first  event  after  the  adjournment  of  the  Legislature 
was  the  vote  upon  the  question  of  calling  the  Constitutional 
Convention.  The  election  excited  comparatively  little  inter- 
est, the  main  adherents  of  the  convention  being  the  Know 
Nothing  clubs,  who  endorsed  the  call  with  great  unanim- 
ity.7 The  influence  of  the  party  in  the  city  was  strong 
enough  to  bring  out  a  vote  of  5404  for  a  convention  and 
3957  against  it;  the  counties,  however,  came  to  the  rescue 
and  the  proposal  was  defeated  by  over  8000  majority.8 


1  Senate  Journal,  1858,  532.  *  Ibid.,  534. 

3  Daniel,  of  Somerset  County.  *  Clipper,  March  13,  1858. 

5  Clipper,  March  18,  1858.  6  Ibid.,  March  25. 

7  Clipper,  May  24,  1858.  8  Clipper,  June  4,  1858. 


241]      Height  of  Know  Nothing  Success,  1857-1858.         97 

The  year  1858  was  essentially  an  off  year  in  Maryland 
politics.  There  was  no  election  for  State  officials  in  this 
year  nor  for  Congressmen;  and  the  entire  interest  was 
centered  in  the  town  elections  and  in  the  municipal  election 
in  Baltimore.  Swann,  after  announcing  that  he  would  not 
run  again,1  was  finally  persuaded  to  accept  a  renomina- 
tion.2  The  Democrats  seemed  to  be  hopelessly  demoral- 
ized and  resolved  to  make  no  nominations.3  The  oppo- 
nents of  Swann  and  Know  Nothingism,  however,  met  in 
convention  and  nominated  Col.  A.  P.  Shutt  for  the  Mayor- 
alty.4 The  independents  did  not  carry  on  a  very  vigorous 
campaign  and  many  persons  supported  Swann  because  "the 
Know  Nothings  were  driven  to  desperation  and  were  bound 
to  win  in  any  event."5 

The  election  was  preceded  by  unusual  quietness  and  a 
peaceful  election  was  looked  forward  to.6  The  election 
was  a  repetition  of  that  of  the  year  before,  there  being 
no  rioting,  but  much  intimidation  and  disorder.  As  in 
the  preceding  year  the  opponents  of  Know  Nothings  held 
the  Eighth  Ward,  and  citizens  who  were  unable  to  vote  in 
other  wards  came  to  this  one  and  cast  their  ballots.  As 
a  result  the  independent  candidate  received  in  this  ward 
3428  votes  out  of  his  entire  total  of  4859.*  The  marked 
tickets  were  again  used,  and  after  the  election  Mr.  Swann 
had  the  complacency  to  say  that  he  did  not  know  that 
these  tickets  were  to  be  used  until  the  night  before  the 
election,  when  it  was  too  late  to  print  others.8  At  noon 
the  independent  candidate  withdrew  from  the  contest,  no 
longer  wishing  to  endanger  the  lives  of  his  friends  at  the 
polls.9  The  result  of  the  election  was  that  Swann  was 
elected  by  a  majority  of  19,144  out  of  a  total  vote  of  24,003. 

1  American,  September  9,  1858.       *  Sun,  American,  September  22. 
3  American,  August  6,  1858.  *Stm,  American,  October  13. 

5  American,  October,  16,  1858.         6  Ibid.,  October  13. 

7  Sun,  American,  October  14  ;  Sun,  October,  29. 

8  American,  October  20,  1858.          9  Ibid.,  October  14. 

7 


98         History  of  Know  Nothing  Party  in  Maryland.     [242 

The  City  Council  was  Know  Nothing  with  the  exception 
of  one  member  in  each  branch.1 

The  outcome  of  this  election  was  a  nominal  reorganiza- 
tion of  the  police  force  by  Mayor  Swann,2  which,  however, 
had  little  effect  in  checking  disorder  and  none  whatever  in 
improving  the  conduct  of  elections.  But  more  important' 
than  this  was  the  organization  of  a  "City  Reform  Associa- 
tion" on  November  2,  for  non-partisan  nominations  to  city 
offices.3  It  was  this  association  which  two  years  later 
finally  wrested  the  city  from  the  rule  of  the  Know  Noth- 
ings. 

1  Sun,  American,  October  14.  2  American,  October  20. 

3  Sun,  American,  November  3,  1858. 


V.     DOWNFALL  OF  KNOW  NOTHINGISM. 
1859-1860. 

As  in  other  years  the  spring  months  of  1859  showed  no 
great  political  activity  in  either  party.  The  State  Council 
met  on  April  6,  and  adopted  resolutions  repudiating  sec- 
tionalism of  all  kinds,  both  abolitionism  at  the  North  and 
sectionalism  at  the  South.1  In  the  Democratic  party  fealty 
had  evidently  disappeared  and  the  party  machinery  had 
fallen  into  a  state  of  "innocuous  desuetude."2  While  there 
was  not  much  political  excitement  in  these  months,  yet  the 
disorder  and  lawlessness  grew  apace.3  What  efforts  the 
police  made  to  check  this  disorder  were  rendered  nugatory 
by  the  action  of  the  Judge  of  the  Criminal  Court,  who  was 
notorious  for  his  loose  habits  and  disregard  of  all  the  con- 
ventions of  civilized  society  and  the  dignity  of  a  court.4  A 
Judge  who  treated  the  ruling  of  the  Court  of  Appeals  with 
contempt,5  and  who  was  frequently  picked  up  by  the  night 
watch  for  his  convivial  habits,  could  hardly  inspire  much 
respect  for  the  majesty  of  the  law. 

The  Know  Nothings  having  conquered  and  disheart- 
ened their  Democratic  opponents,  they  now  began  to  fight 
among  themselves.  At  the  primary  elections  held  to  elect 
delegates  to  the  City  and  Legislative  Conventions  the  fac- 
tions in  the  party  fought  each  other  as  cordially  as  they  had 
fought  the  Democrats  in  the  previous  campaigns.  Open 
intimidation  was  practiced  to  such  an  extent  that  the  re- 
spectable members  of  the  party  were  driven  from  the  polls 

1  American,  April  7,  1859.  *  Ibid.,  February  3,  1859. 

3  Clipper,  June  30  ;  American,  July  7. 
*  American,  September  15,  1858. 

5  Testimony  before  the  Committee  of  the  House  of  Delegates,  12. 
American,  February  2,  1859. 

99 


100       History  of  Know  Nothing  Party  in  Maryland.      [244 

and  the  party  was  left  to  the  tender  mercy  of  the  clubs.1 
The  disorder  was  so  marked  that  notice  was  taken  not  only 
in  the  newspapers  of  other  cities,  and  in  some  cases  greatly 
exaggerated,  but  a  report  of  the  disorder  also  found  its  way 
into  the  London  Illustrated  News.2 

Within  a  short  time  the  Know  Nothings  had  put  candi- 
dates in  the  field  for  all  the  offices.  The  Democratic  party 
seemed  utterly  powerless,  and  some  opposition  was  abso- 
lutely necessary,  as  the  recurring  disorder  threatened  to 
injure  the  trade  of  the  city  and  to  prevent  merchants  from 
visiting  it  to  make  purchases.3  Accordingly  the  American, 
on  August  26,  demanded  that  a  town-meeting  should  be 
held  to  consider  the  condition  of  the  city.  The  matter  was 
given  in  charge  of  a  committee  of  citizens  and  a  call  was 
issued  for  a  meeting  to  "devise  some  means  to  rescue  our 
city  from  its  present  deplorable  condition."4  At  this 
meeting,  which  was  held  on  September  8,  it  was  resolved 
that  the  president  of  the  meeting  should  appoint  a  central 
committee  of  one  from  each  ward  to  have  charge  of  the 
election  arrangements  and  to  make  nominations.5 

This  meeting  called  forth  a  counter,  demonstration  on  the 
part  of  the  Know  Nothings,  and  Henry  Winter  Davis  took 
care  to  pick  to  pieces  the  address  issued  by  the  Citizens 
Committee.  In  this  address  the  committee  had  used  the 
words  "to  devise  some  means  of  rescuing  the  city  from  its 
present  deplorable  condition."  In  commenting  upon  the 
use  of  the  word  "rescue"  Davis  took  occasion  to  denounce 
it  as  an  attempt  to  establish  a  vigilance  committee  and  to 
overthrow  the  regularly  constituted  authorities.6  His 
adherents  were  not  slow  to  grasp  his  meaning  and  the 
usual  amount  of  disorder  prevailed  at  the  municipal  elec- 

1  American,  August  3  and  18  ;  Sim,  August  19,  1859. 

2  London  Illustrated  News,  August  20,  1859. 

3  American,  September  9,  1859. 

4  Ibid.,  August  30,  1859. 

5  Sun,  American,  September  9,  1859. 

6  American,  September  6,  1859. 


245]       Dozvnfall  of  Know  Nothingism,  1859-1860.        101 

tion  on  October  13.  But  in  spite  of  fraud  the  reform  party 
succeeded  in  electing  six  members  of  the  City  Council.  ' 

Most  of  the  interest,  however,  was  centered  in  the  State 
election  about  three  weeks  later.  About  a  week  before  the 
election  the  clubs  held  a  grand  rally  in  Monument  Square, 
and  the  transparencies  gave  evidence  of  what  could  be  ex- 
pected at  the  coming  election.  At  the  preceding  munici- 
pal election  the  shoemaker's  awl  had  been  introduced  as  an 
element  of  persuasion,  and  this  instrument  formed  the  sub- 
ject of  many  of  the  designs.  One  of  the  clubs  even  had  a 
blacksmith  forge  on  wheels  with  men  at  work  making  awls, 
and  Henry  Winter  Davis  did  not  hesitate  to  address  his 
supporters  with  a  huge  awl  four  feet  long  hanging  over  his 
head.2 

The  mottoes  were  characteristic  of  what  the  party  had 
come  to  in  the  hands  of  the  clubs,  and  gave  evidence  of  an 
open  disregard  for  even  an  appearance  of  decency.  One 
paper  stated  that  some  were  exhibited  which  no  paper 
would  dare  to  print.3  The  following  are  selected  as  char- 
acteristic :  One  of  the  transparencies  contained  the  figure 
of  a  man  running  with  another  in  pursuit  sticking  an  awl 
into  him.4  Another  represented  an  uplifted  arm  with  a 
clenched  fist  with  the  motto  "With  this  we'll  do  the  work/' 
Still  another  was  a  picture  of  a  bleeding  head  marked  "the 
head  of  a  Reformer."  But  the  transparency  which  prob- 
ably most  correctly  represented  the  feeling  of  the  majority 
of  the  meeting  was  the  couplet  which  read : 

"Reform  movement — reform  man, 
If  you  can  vote,  I'll  be  d d."  5 

It  is  hardly  necessary  to  give  the  details  of  the  election, 
duplicating  as  they  do  those  previously  described.  A  new 

1  Sun,  American,  October  14,  1859. 

2  Ibid.,  October  28,  1859.     "Testimony  before  a  Committee  of  the 
House  of  Delegates,"  12. 

3  American,  October  29,  1859. 

4  "  Baltimore  Contested  Election,"  352.  5  Ibid. 


102       History  of  Know  Nothing  Party  in  Maryland.     [246 

departure  was  the  use  of  the  awl,  which  had  been  first 
tried  at  the  municipal  election  in  October.  Another  cus- 
tom which  had  never  been  used  by  the  Know  Nothings, 
but  which  had  existed  before  their  time,  was  the  use  of 
coops  for  voters.  Voters,  and  many  persons  not  legal 
voters,  were  captured  by  the  workers  of  the  party  and  con- 
fined in  cellars  and  other  convenient  places.  Often  beaten 
and  robbed,  the  poor  victims  were  thrown  into  these  filthy 
places  where  as  many  as  a  hundred  and  fifty  men  were 
sometimes  confined  for  several  days  without  even  the  de- 
cencies of  civilized  life.1  It  is  a  nauseating  narrative 
which  reminds  one  more  of  the  Middle  Ages  than  of  a  free 
country  in  the  middle  of  the  Nineteenth  Century. 

With  such  methods  the  success  of  the  Know  Nothing 
candidates  was  assured  and  they  carried  the  city  by  almost 
twelve  thousand  majority.  The  remainder  of  the  State, 
however,  went  against  them.  Disgusted  with  the  state  of 
affairs  in  Baltimore  the  counties  went  into  the  Democratic 
column  and  the  vote  of  the  State,  outside  of  Baltimore, 
showed  a  majority  of  over  nineteen  hundred  for  the  Demo- 
cratic candidate  for  Comptroller.  The  Legislature  was 
also  Democratic,  the  relative  strength  of  the  parties  in  the 
House  of  Delegates  being  just  the  reverse  of  what  it  had 
been  two  years  before.2 

This  election  also  gave  occasion  for  several  contests. 
The  defeated  candidates3  for  the  Legislature  from  Balti- 
more filed  notice  of  contest,4  and  the  usual  mass  of  testi- 
mony was  taken  by  a  committee  of  the  Legislature.  The 
Committee  on  Elections  reported  that  there  was  no  election 
by  reason  of  the  disorder.6  On  the  last  day  of  the  session 

1  "  Baltimore  Contested  Elections,"  36,  et  seq.,  145. 
J  House  :  Democrats  45,  Know  Nothings  29.     Senate  :  Democrats 
12,  Know  Nothings  10. 

3  Adam  Denmead,  E.  Wyatt  Blanchard,  Francis  B.  Loney,  Hugh 
A.  Cooper,  Isaac  S.  George,  John  J.  Graves,   Henry  Stockbridge, 
John  F.  Meredith,  William  Colton  and  William  F.  Burns. 

4  House  Journal,  1860,  10.  *  Ibid.,  706. 


247]       Dozunfall  of  Know  Nothingism,  1859-1860.        103 

the  matter  came  up  in  the  House,  and  the  House  by  a  vote 
of  forty-one  to  six  adopted  the  report  of  the  committee,  de- 
claring the  seats  to  be  vacant.  Twelve  of  the  minority 
refused  to  vote  on  the  ground  that  the  testimony  had  not 
been  read  in  the  House.1 

The  defeated  candidate  for  Comptroller  likewise  con- 
tested the  election  of  his  successful  opponent.2  This  con- 
test was  also  decided  by  the  House  of  Delegates,  as  that 
body  was  vested  with  the  power  to  decide  contested  elec- 
tions to  the  office  of  Comptroller.3  The  contest  hinged 
upon  the  conduct  of  the  election  in  Baltimore  as  the  vote 
of  the  State  outside  of  Baltimore  was  33,076  for  Jarrett,  the 
Democratic  candidate,  and  30,584  for  Purnell  the  Know 
Nothing.  In  Baltimore  the  vote  received  by  the  two  can- 
didates was  5333  and  18,118,  respectively.  In  the  contest 
of  the  defeated  candidates  for  the  House  of  Delegates  from 
Baltimore,  the  House  had  not  seated  the  contestants,  but 
had  merely  declared  the  seats  vacant,  and  the  election  void 
by  reason  of  fraud  and  violence  at  the  election.4  In  this 
case  the  House  threw  out  the  vote  in  Baltimore  entirely, 
but  instead  of  declaring  the  office  vacant,  it  decided  that 
Jarrett,  the  contestant,  was  entitled  to  the  office  as  he  had 
received  a  majority  of  the  votes  in  the  State  outside  of  Bal- 
timore.5 

The  resolution  of  the  House,  however,  did  not  put  Jar- 
rett in  possession  of  the  office,  although  such  was  the  evi- 
dent intention  of  the  law.  When  Jarrett  appeared  before 
the  Governor  and  tendered  his  bond  and  offered  to  take  the 
oath  of  office,  the  Governor  accepted  the  bond,  but  refused 
to  administer  the  oath.6  Consequently  Jarrett  could  not 
take  possession  of  the  office.  In  this  way  the  Governor 
overcame  the  action  of  the  House  of  Delegates,  as  the 

1  House  Journal,  1860,  893.        *  Ibid.,  49. 

3  Act  1853,  chap.  244.  Code  of  Public  General  Laws,  Art.  35, 
sec.  52.  *  House  Journal,  1860,  706,  893. 

5  House  of  Delegates  Document  Y,  23-27.    Journal,  894. 
'17  Maryland  Reports,  315. 


104       History  of  Know  Nothing  Party  in  Maryland,     [248 

Know  Nothing  candidate,  Purnell,  had  held  the  office  for 
the  previous  term  and  held  over  until  his  successor  should 
qualify.  On  May  8,  1861,  Purnell  resigned  the  office,  and 
the  Governor  appointed  Dennis  Claude.1  On  June  12,  1861, 
the  Legislature,  then  in  extra  session,  passed  an  act  author- 
izing any  Judge  of  the  Court  of  Appeals  to  administer  the 
oath  to  Jarrett  and  to  approve  his  bond.  On  July  9,  Judge 
James  L.  Bartol  approved  Jarrett's  bond,  and  administered 
the  oath  in  conformity  with  the  above  statute.2  Claude, 
however,  refused  to  vacate  the  office.  The  State  Treasurer, 
on  July  29,  refused  to  pay  a  warrant  drawn  by  Claude  in 
favor  of  Thos.  J.  Wilson,  and  Wilson  applied  for  a  writ  of 
mandamus  against  the  Treasurer.  At  the  same  time  the 
State  prayed  a  writ  of  injunction  against  Harwood  and  Jar- 
rett to  prevent  them  from  interfering  with  the  incumbent, 
Claude.  It  was  on  the  injunction  suit  that  the  case  came 
to  the  Court  of  Appeals  from  the  Equity  side  of  the  Circuit 
Court  for  Harford  County.3 

On  October  8,  1861,  the  Court  of  Appeals  decided  the 
case,  and  held  Jarrett  entitled  to  the  office.  In  deciding  the 
case  the  following  points  of  law  were  established.  The 
decision  of  the  House  of  Delegates  on  such  a  contest  must 
be  taken  as  final  and  conclusive,  no  matter  what  may  have 
been  the  reasons  which  induced  such  decision.  The  power 
given  to  the  House  of  Delegates  is  not  a  special  or  limited 
jurisdiction,  nor  are  its  decisions  liable  to  the  reasoning 
applicable  to  judgments  of  such  tribunals,  its  jurisdiction 
is  the  only  entire  and  absolute  one  in  such  cases,  and  there 
is  no  other  tribunal  which  can  review  it.  In  case  of  a  con- 
tested election  for  the  office  of  Comptroller,  if  the  party 
decided  by  the  House  of  Delegates  to  be  elected,  fails  to 
qualify,  by  giving  bond  and  taking  the  necessary  oath  of 
office,  the  party  holding  under  the  previous  election  contin- 
ues in  office  until  the  due  qualification  of  his  successor.  In 


1 17  Maryland  Reports,  310,  324.  2  Ibid.,  316. 

3  State  vs.  Jarrett,  17  Maryland,  310. 


249]       Downfall  of  Know  Nothingism,  1859-1860.        105 

case  the  party  so  holding  over  resign,  the  Governor  has 
the  constitutional  power  to  appoint  his  successor,  not,  how- 
ever, necessarily  for  the  full  period  between  the  appoint- 
ment and  the  next  general  election,  but  until  the  party 
entitled  to  the  office  shall  duly  qualify.  In  case  of  con- 
tested election  to  the  office  of  Comptroller,  the  party  de- 
cided by  the  House  of  Delegates  to  be  elected,  is  placed  in 
the  same  position  as  if  he  had  been  returned  by  the  Judges 
of  Election,  and  if,  by  any  defect  in  the  law,  or  on  the  part 
of  its  administrators,  he  is  prevented  from  qualifying,  it  is 
competent  for  the  Legislature  to  pass  an  enabling  act  for 
that  purpose.  When  the  party  declared  elected  qualifies 
after  the  resignation  of  the  party  holding  over,  and  after 
an  appointment  by  the  Governor,  the  appointment  of  the 
Governor,  in  such  case,  is  ad  interim  only,  and  the  ap- 
pointee is  subject  to  be  divested  whenever  the  party 
declared  elected  duly  qualifies.1 

The  new  Legislature  met  on  January  4,  1860.  One  of 
the  first  matters  to  engage  its  attention  was  the  question  of 
a  proper  police  force  for  Baltimore,  and  one  of  the  first  acts 
passed  was  one  taking  the  control  of  the  police  away  from 
the  Mayor,  and  putting  it  in  the  hands  of  a  board  of  four 
Commissioners  elected  by  the  Legislature.2  At  the  same 
time  the  Board  was  authorized  to  divide  the  city  into  elec- 
tion precincts.3  Those  bills  were  among  the  earliest  passed 
by  the  Legislature,  the  Senate  having  passed  the  Police 
Bill  on  January  28*  and  the  House  on  February  2.s  In  its 
conduct  on  the  Police  Bill  the  Legislature  went  to  an  ex- 
treme of  partisanship  and  sectionalism  which  was  charac- 
teristic of  the  period.  The  Act  contained  a  clause  "that 
no  Black  Republican  or  endorser  of  the  Helper  Book  should 
be  appointed  to  any  office  under  said  Board."6  This  "Helper 

1  State  vs.  Jarrett,  17  Maryland,  309. 

2  Act  of  1860,  chap.  7.  3  Ibid.,  chap.  9. 

4  Senate  Journal,  1860,  130.  5  House  Journal,  1860,  27. 

6  Act  1860,  chap.  7,  sec.  6.  Code  1860,  Public  Local  Laws,  Art.  4, 
sec.  809. 


106       History  of  Know  Nothing  Party  in  Maryland.     [250 

Book"  was  a  book  by  H.  Rowan  Helper,  a  native  of 
North  Carolina,  and  was  written  under  the  title  of  the  "Im- 
pending Crisis."  The  book  advocated  the  abolition  of 
slavery  more  particularly  with  reference  to  the  economic 
aspects  as  regards  the  whites  than  with  regard  to  humani- 
tarian or  religious  considerations.1  The  book  was  first 
published  in  1857,  and  in  1860  it  was  largely  used  by  the 
Republican  party  as  a  campaign  document.  Over  a  hun- 
dred and  forty  thousand  copies  were  issued  within  four 
years  of  its  first  publication.  This  action  of  the  Legislature 
showed  that  the  Democrats  were  just  as  prescriptive  as 
they  had  charged  the  Know  Nothings  with  being,  as  it 
was  just  as  much  a  part  of  the  religion  of  the  Abolitionist  to 
oppose  slavery  as  it  was  for  the  Catholics  to  believe  in  the 
Pope's  supremacy.  This  section  was  repealed  by  the  Act 
of  February  18,  i862.2 

It  is  interesting  to  compare  this  section  with  that  part 
of  the  law  which  prescribed  the  oath  to  be  taken  by  the 
members  of  the  Board  of  Police  Commissioners.  After 
enumerating  the  duties  of  the  Board,  the  following  oath 
was  prescribed :  "That  in  any  and  every  appointment  or 
removal  to  be  by  them  made  to  or  from  the  police  force 
created  and  to  be  organized  by  them  under  this  article,  they 
will  in  no  case  and  under  no  pretext  appoint  or  remove  any 
policeman  or  officer  of  police,  or  other  person  under  them, 
for  or  on  account  of  the  political  opinion  of  such  police- 
man, officer  or  other  person,  or  for  any  other  cause  or 
reason  than  the  fitness  or  unfitness  of  such  persons."3  While 
the  Commissioners  were  forbidden  to  appoint  or  remove 
any  policeman  for  political  reasons,  yet  they  were  allowed 
and  even  enjoined  not  to  appoint  any  person  who  held  cer- 
tain political  views. 

1  H.  R.  Helper  :  "  The  Impending  Crisis,"  v. 

2  Act  of  1862,  chap.  131. 

"Public  Local  Laws  1860,  Art.  4,  sec.  806.     Act  1860,  chap.  7, 


251]       Downfall  of  Know  Nothingism,  1859-1860.        107 

In  addition  to  the  Police  Bill  the  Legislature  petitioned 
the  Governor  for  the  removal  of  Judge  Stump,  the  Judge 
of  the  Criminal  Court  in  Baltimore,  whose  conduct  had 
done  so  much  to  encourage  the  lawless  element.  The  Con- 
stitution empowered  the  Governor  to  remove  any  Judge 
upon  the  petition  of  two-thirds  of  the  members  of  each 
House  of  the  General  Assembly.1  The  Legislature,  after 
taking  testimony,  petitioned  the  Governor  in  due  form, 
and  the  Judge  was  accordingly  removed  from  office.2  This, 
however,  was  not  accomplished  before  the  Judge  had  ap- 
peared at  the  capital,  and  had  a  personal  encounter  with 
one  of  the  Senators  relative  to  the  Senate  report.3 

The  Legislature  also  passed  a  resolution  censuring 
Henry  Winter  Davis  for  voting  for  Pennington  for  Speaker 
of  the  House  of  Representatives.4  This  resolution  was 
passed  by  an  almost  unanimous  vote,  the  Know  Nothing 
members  voting  in  favor  of  the  resolution.5  The  action  of 
Davis  was  contrary  to  the  position  of  the  party  in  Mary- 
land, even  the  Clipper  joining  in  the  universal  condemna- 
tion of  Davis.6  Davis  retorted  in  his  usual  forcible  style 
in  a  speech  in  the  House  of  Representatives.7  After  review- 
ing the  conduct  of  the  Democratic  party  in  the  Legisla- 
ture he  scored  it  in  the  following  language:  "Sir,  it  has 
always  been  the  striking  and  marked  peculiarity  of  that 

Constitution  1850,  Art.  IV,  sec.  4. 

2  House  Journal,  1860,  704.     Senate  Journal,  1860,  584,  637. 

3  Clipper,  March  8,  1860. 

*"  Resolved  by  the  General  Assembly  of  Maryland,  that  Henry 
Winter  Davis  acting  in  Congress  as  one  of  the  representatives  of 
this  State,  by  his  vote  for  Mr.  Pennington,  the  candidate  of  the  Black 
Republican  party  for  the  Speakership  of  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives, has  misrepresented  the  sentiments  of  all  portions  of  this  State, 
and  thereby  forfeited  the  confidence  of  her  people."  House  Journal, 
1860,  354. 

5  Ibid.,  355.     Maryland  Union  (Frederick),  February  16,  1860. 

6  Clipper,  February  n,  1860. 

'Cong.  Globe,  ist  Session,  36th  Congress.  Appendix,  117. 
"Speeches  and  Addresses  of  Henry  Winter  Davis,"  125. 


108       History  of  Know  Nothing  Party  in  Maryland.     [252 

party,  which  now  accidentally  and  only  temporarily  pre- 
dominates in  the  councils  of  Maryland,  that  they  will  allow 
no  opportunity  to  pass  of  what  they  call  indicating  their 
entire  fealty  to  the  South,  and  that,  sir,  always  consists  in 
exciting  sectional  strife,  in  mooting  matters  which  men 
ought  not  to  argue,  in  libeling  their  neighbors,  in  endeav- 
oring to  make  them  hateful  and  disgusting  to  their  fellow- 
citizens,  in  giving  an  advertisement  to  the  whole  country 
that  everybody  that  is  not  a  Democrat  is  an  Abolitionist, 
and  that  if  any  fanatics  shall  see  fit  at  any  time  to  come 
within  the  limits  of  a  Southern  State  for  the  purpose  of 
shaking  and  upsetting  the  solid  foundations  of  society, 
there  would  be  found  men  who,  if  they  feared  to  join  them, 
would  yet  sympathize  with  them.  *  *  *  Agitation,  clamor, 
vituperation,  audacious  and  pertinacious,  are  their  weapons 
of  warfare.  Of  this  spirit  the  Legislature  of  Maryland  as 
now  constituted  is  the  incarnation.  It  stands  the  embodi- 
ment of  that  terrific  vision  of  the  Portress  of  Hell  gate, 
who  to  the  eye  of  Milton 

'  Seemed  women  to  the  waist  and  fair 
But  ended  in  many  a  scaly  fold 
Voluminous  and  vast,'  etc. 

"And  they,  as  false  to  their  mission  as  the  Portress  of 
Hell  to  hers,  stand  ready,  for  the  purpose  of  retaining  their 
hold  of  power,  to  let  loose  on  this  blessed  land  the  Satan  of 
demoniacal  passion."1 

Then,  turning  to  the  Know  Nothing  members  who  had 
voted  for  the  resolution,  he  paid  his  respects  to  them  in  the 
following  terms :  "I  confess  myself  surprised  that  my  own 
friends,  excepting  four  of  them,  voted  for  it.  I  fear  that  in 
one  evil  hour  some  of  them  allowed  themselves  to  be 
frightened.  I  suspect  some  of  them  were  afraid  that  they 
should  be  called  'Abolitionists.'  Subjected  to  the  torture 
of  voting  against  a  resolution  which  was  supposed  to  be  in 

ll< Speeches  and  Addresses  of  Henry  Winter  Davis,"  132. 


253]       Downfall  of  Know  Nothingism,  1859-1860.       109 

favor  of  Southern  rights,  or  of  deserting  a  friend,  they 
could  not  be  expected  to  regard  justice  to  me  rather  than 
safety  to  themselves.  So  every  man  took  care  of  himself. 
Some  voted  for  the  resolutions  who  went  through  the  elec- 
tions on  my  shoulders.  They  did  not  know  that  when 
they  saw  away  the  bough  between  themselves  and  the  tree 
they  must  fall.  But,  sir,  it  was  a  curious  scene.  The  clerk 
called  the  name  of  an  American  in  the  Legislature  once, 
and  there  was  a  pause;  twice,  and  there  was  a  shuffling; 
thrice,  and  there  was  a  hesitating  response.  Then  there 
was  a  period  of  blessed  repose,  when  certain  Democratic 
names  were  called,  and  were  responded  to  with  that  earn- 
estness with  which  Democrats  always  respond  when  aim- 
ing a  blow  at  a  political  adversary.  Then  some  unfortunate 
Americans  were  called  upon  to  vote.  The  gentlemen  stood 
first  on  one  leg  and  then  on  the  other,  in  sad  doubt  on 
which  to  rest;  gentlemen  looked  over  their  shoulders  to 
see  if  there  were  not  some  dust  of  a  coming  reprieve,  some 
rushed  to  inquire  of  friends  whether  they  ought  or  ought 
not  to  vote  for  the  resolution;  while  there  sat  their  inex- 
orable and  determined  opponents,  with  their  eyes  glaring 
upon  them  and  their  mouths  open,  sure  of  their  prey  after 
the  fluttering  was  over,  and  in  they  went.  *  *  *  Sir,  I 
admire  the  audacity  of  the  Maryland  Democrat  as  much  as 
I  deplore  the  weakness  of  the  Maryland  American."1 

Such  a  diminution  of  the  power  of  the  Mayor  and  City 
Council  as  was  effected  by  the  law  putting  the  control  of 
the  police  force  in  the  hands  of  Commissioners  appointed 
by  the  State  was  not  to  pass  unchallenged.  When  the  new 
Commissioners  demanded  the  control  of  the  police  force, 
the  Mayor  refused  to  acknowledge  the  constitutionality  of 
the  Act  creating  the  Board  of  Police  Commissioners.  The 
new  Commissioners  accordingly,  on  February  10,  1860, 
applied  for  a  writ  of  mandamus  in  the  Superior  Court  of 
Baltimore.  This  being  granted,  the  Mayor  and  City  Coun- 

1 "  Speeches  and  Addresses  of  Henry  Winter  Davis,"  137. 


1 10       History  of  Know  Nothing  Party  in  Maryland.     [254 

cil  took  an  appeal,  and  on  April  17,  a  decision  was  rendered 
by  the  Court  of  Appeals.1  Upon  the  Act  of  1860  and  this 
decision  upon  it  rests  the  present  government  of  the  Balti- 
more police.  The  main  points  laid  down  in  this  decision 
were  the  following: 

The  attorney  for  the  Mayor  and  Council  argued  that 
the  Legislature  had  no  power  to  appoint  the  Commission- 
ers, as  this  was  an  executive  act,  and  the  sixth  Article  of 
the  Declaration  of  Rights  declared  "that  the  legislative, 
executive  and  judicial  powers  of  government  ought  to  be 
forever  separate  and  distinct  from  each  other,  and  no  per- 
son exercising  the  functions  of  one  of  said  departments 
shall  assume  or  discharge  the  functions  of  any  other."  In 
ruling  upon  this  point  the  Court  held  that  the  power  of  ap- 
pointment to  office  is  not,  under  our  system  of  checks  and 
balances  in  the  distribution  of  powers,  where  the  people 
are  the  source  and  fountain  of  government,  a  function  in- 
trinsically executive  in  the  sense  that  it  is  inherent  in  and 
necessarily  belongs  to  the  executive  department.  The  sixth 
Article  of  the  Bill  of  Rights,  "that  the  legislative,  executive 
and  judicial  powers  of  the  government  ought  to  be  forever 
separate  and  distinct  from  each  other,"  is  not  to  be  inter- 
preted as  enjoining  a  complete  separation  between  these 
several  departments.  The  design  of  this  article  is  to  en- 
graft the  principles  there  announced,  on  our  system,  only 
as  far  as  comported  with  free  government.  The  Bill  of 
Rights  is  not  to  be  construed  by  itself  according  to  its  lit- 
eral meaning ;  it  and  the  Constitution  compose  one  form  of 
government  and  they  must  be  interpreted  as  one  instru- 
ment; the  former  announces  principles  on  which  the  gov- 
ernment about  to  be  established  will  be  based ;  if  they  differ, 
the  Constitution  must  be  taken  as  a  limitation  or  qualifi- 
cation of  the  general  principles  previously  declared.  If  the 
power  of  appointing  officers  is  given  to  the  Legislature,  it 
may  be  exercised  notwithstanding  the  sixth  Article  of  the 

1  Baltimore  vs.  State,  15  Maryland,  376. 


255]       Dozvnfall  of  Know  Nothingism,  1859-1860.        Ill 

Bill  of  Rights.  Section  1 1  of  Article  27  of  the  Constitution 
confers  on  the  Executive  the  appointment  of  all  officers  pro- 
vided for,  "unless  a  different  mode  of  appointment  be  pre- 
scribed by  the  law  creating  the  office,"  and  under  this  the 
Legislature  may  designate  the  officers  in  the  law  creating 
the  offices.1 

The  appellants  further  argued  that  the  transfer  of  the 
police  force  from  the  city  government  to  the  Commission- 
ers was  unconstitutional,  because  the  charter  of  1796  gave 
Baltimore  a  local  government  with  all  the  means  necessary 
for  the  purposes  of  government.  Among  these  was  a  police 
power  to  maintain  the  peace  and  security  of  the  governed. 
Furthermore,  it  was  claimed  that  the  Constitution  in  recog- 
nizing the  municipal  corporation  of  Baltimore  as  part  and 
parcel  of  the  organized  government  of  the  State,  had  placed 
the  charter  beyond  the  reach  of  mere  legislative  power.  In 
passing  on  this  the  Court  held  that  the  fact  that  the  Constitu- 
tion mentions  and  recognizes  the  municipal  corporation  of 
the  city  of  Baltimore  does  not  make  the  charter  of  the  city  a 
constitutional  charter,  so  as  to  place  it  beyond  the  reach  of 
legislative  power.2 

In  regard  to  that  section  in  the  law  prohibiting  Black 
Republicans  from  holding  any  office  under  the  Board,  the 
Court  held  that  it  was  "obnoxious  to  the  objection  urged 
against  it,  if  we  are  to  consider  that  class  of  persons  as 
proscribed  on  account  of  their  political  of  religious  opin- 
ions. But  we  cannot  understand,  officially,  who  are  meant 
to  be  affected  by  the  proviso,  and  therefore  cannot  express 
a  judicial  opinion  on  the  question."3  The  various  other 
objections  urged  against  the  law  were  all  disposed  of,  and 
the  decision  of  the  lower  court  in  favor  of  the  Commis- 
sioners was  affirmed.  Chief  Justice  LeGrand  delivered  a 
separate  concurring  opinion  going  more  fully  into  some  of 
the  points  passed  upon.* 

1 15  Maryland,  455-461.  *  Ibid.,  462-464. 

.  ,468.  */«rf.,  470. 


112       History  of  Know  Nothing  Party  in  Maryland.     [256 

With  the  police  force  in  the  hands  of  their  opponents,  it 
was  evident  that  the  Know  Nothings  did  not  stand  much 
chance  of  success  in  the  next  election.  In  every  other  part 
of  the  State  they  had  been  swept  out,  and  only  in  Balti- 
more did  they  still  hold  their  sway.  But  when  the  control 
of  the  police  passed  from  them,  their  power  in  the  city  fell 
like  a  house  of  cards.  They  themselves  realized  this,  and 
it  was  a  question  whether  they  should  make  a  Mayoralty 
nomination  or  make  a  fusion  with  the  Constitutional  Union 
party,1  which  was  the  successor  of  the  Know  Nothings  in 
the  border  States  between  the  North  and  South.  Most  of 
the  members  of  the  party  also  supported  the  Constitutional 
Union  party  in  the  national  contest,  but  it  was  finally  de- 
cided to  make  a  nomination  along  the  old  party  line  for 
the  Mayoralty.2  Accordingly,  Charles  M.  Keyser  was 
nominated  as  the  candidate  for  Mayor.3  Mr.  Keyser,  how- 
ever, refused  to  accept  the  doubtful  honor,  and  the  Con- 
vention reassembled  on  September  19,  and  nominated 
Samuel  Hindes.4  The  Reform  Committee  met  on  Sep- 
tember 28,  and  nominated  Mr.  George  William  Brown  for 
Mayor,  and  also  made  nominations  for  the  Council  in  the 
various  wards.5 

The  campaign  was  the  last  fight  of  the  Know  Nothings, 
who  had  long  outlived  any  definite  principles  except  an 
endeavor  to  obtain  public  office.  But  while  the  party  had 
outlived  its  principles,  it  had  not  outlived  its  resource?, 
questionable  though  some  of  them  were.  In  the  last  year 
of  Know  Nothing  administration  Druid  Hill  Park  had  been 
purchased  by  the  city,  and  it  was  arranged  to  dedicate  this 
great  pleasure  ground  two  days  before  the  municipal  elec- 
tion with  a  grand  celebration,  including  the  participation 
of  a  number  of  school  children.6  But  the  lucky  star  of  the 


1  American,  September  3,  1860.  2  Ibid.,  September  6. 

3  Sun,  American,  September  13,  1860. 

4  Ibid.,  September  19  and  20.  8  Ibid.,  September  29. 
6  Sun,  October  6. 


257J       Downfall  of  Know  Nothingism,  1859-1860.        113 

Know  Nothings  had  waned,  and  on  the  appointed  day  the 
rain  upset  all  the  calculations  of  this  great  coup  d'etat,  and 
the  park  was  not  formally  opened  until  October  IQ.1 

As  the  Know  Nothings  no  longer  controlled  the  police, 
il  was  not  possible  for  them  to  look  for  any  aid  in  that  quar- 
ter, either  in  aiding  or  in  countenancing  their  skillful  man- 
ipulations of  the  ballot  box.  Accordingly  they  adopted  a 
device  which  they  calculated  would  mislead  many  voters. 
The  name  of  the  reform  candidate  was  George  William 
Brown,  and  the  Know  Nothings  had  a  number  of  tickets 
printed  with  the  name  of  William  George  Brown  upon 
them,  and  on  the  day  of  election  his  name  appeared  in  the 
advertising  columns  of  the  American  and  Clipper  as  a  can- 
didate for  Mayor.2  The  notice  was  brought  to  the  Ameri- 
can office  late  at  night,  just  as  the  paper  was  going  to  press, 
and  the  trick  was  overlooked.  Otherwise  the  American 
stated  that  the  notice  would  not  have  been  inserted.3  The 
Clipper  had  the  complacency  to  deny  any  trick,  and  stated 
that  the  name  was  all  right,  and  that  William  George  was 
a  citizen  of  the  Fourteenth  Ward.4  The  writer  has  been 
informed  that  the  latter  part  of  this  statement'  is  correct. 
There  is  hardly  any  necessity  for  comment  upon  the 
former. 

The  trick,  however,  deceived  very  few,  as  the  fake  candi- 
dates received  only  twenty  votes.  Each  ward  had  been 
divided  into  three  election  precincts,  and  the  election  passed 
off  quietly  and  orderly.  Brown  received  17,771  votes 
to  9>575  f°r  Hindes,  and  the  entire  Reform  ticket  was 
elected  in  both  branches  of  the  City  Council.5  In  the  pre- 
vious year  the  Know  Nothing  vote  in  the  city  had  been 
18,194  while  that  of  their  opponents  was  only  5250. 

With  this  election  ended  the  career  of  the  Know  Noth- 
ings in  Maryland,  and,  indeed,  all  over  the  country,  for 

1  Sun,  October  20.  '2  American,  Clipper,  October  10. 

3  American,  October  n.       *  Clipper,  October  n. 
5  Sun,  American,  October  n. 
8 


114       History  of  Know  Nothing  Party  in  Maryland.     [258 

elsewhere  the  Know  Nothing  party  was  only  a  memory. 
In  the  presidential  contest  of  1860  the  Constitutional  Union 
party  adopted  the  "Do  Nothing"  position  of  the  Know 
Nothings  on  the  slavery  question,  but  not  the  rest  of  the 
Know  Nothing  program.1  Most  of  the  Know  Nothings 
went  into  the  Constitutional  Union  party,  as  it  still  repre- 
sented the  middle  path  between  what  seemed  to  be  the 
extreme  parties.  In  the  presidential  election  of  1860  the 
vote  of  the  four  candidates  in  Maryland  was :  Bell  (Con- 
stitutional Union),  41,760;  Breckenbridge,  42,482;  Doug- 
las, 5966 ;  Lincoln,  2294.  In  Baltimore  the  vote  was : 
Bell,  12,604;  Breckenbridge,  14,956;  Douglas,  1503; 
Lincoln,  io83.2 

In  the  next  year  came  the  war,  and  everything  was  chaos. 
Many  of  the  turbulent  spirits  who  had  created  so  much  dis- 
order went  into  the  army  and  utilized  their  rude  energy  in 
a  better  cause  than  roughing  elections.  Afterwards  the 
Republican  party  absorbed  most  of  the  Know  Nothings, 
the  line  of  descent  being  Whig,  Know  Nothing,  Consti- 

1<(  WHEREAS,  Experience  has  demonstrated  that  the  Platforms 
adopted  by  the  partisan  conventions  of  the  country  have  had  the 
effect  to  mislead  and  deceive  the  people,  and  at  the  same  time  to 
widen  the  political  divisions  of  the  country,  by  the  creation  of 
geographical  parties  ;  therefore, 

"Resolved,  That  it  is  both  the  part  of  patriotism  and  of  duty  to 
recognize  no  political  principle  other  than  the  Constitution  of  the 
country,  the  union  of  the  States,  and  the  enforcement  of  the  laws,  and 
that  as  representatives  of  the  Constitutional  Union  men  of  the 
country  in  National  Convention  assembled,  we  hereby  pledge  our- 
selves to  maintain,  protect,  and  defend,  separately  and  unitedly, 
these  great  principles  of  public  liberty  and  national  safety,  against 
all  enemies  at  home  and  abroad,  believing  that  thereby  peace  may 
once  more  be  restored  to  the  country,  the  rights  of  the  people  and 
of  the  States  re-established  and  the  Government  again  placed  in 
that  condition  of  justice,  fraternity,  and  equality  which  under  the 
example  and  Constitution  of  our  fathers  has  solemnly  bound  every 
citizen  of  the  United  States  to  maintain  a  more  perfect  union,  establish 
justice,  insure  domestic  tranquility,  provide  for  the  common  defense, 
promote  the  general  welfare,  and  secure  the  blessings  of  liberty  to 
ourselves  and  our  posterity." — "  Tribune  Almanac,  1861,"  34. 

8  Ibid.,  49. 


259]       Downfall  of  Know  Nothingism,  1859-1860.        115 

tutional  Union  and  Republican.  Swann,  who  had  been 
Know  Nothing  Mayor  for  four  years,  first  became  a  Re- 
publican, and  then  went  over  to  the  Democrats,  being  wel- 
comed into  the  Democratic  ranks  like  a  prodigal  son,  and 
received  the  enthusiastic  support  of  many  who  had  bitterly 
denounced  him  in  former  years.  Another  Know  Nothing 
who  became  a  prominent  Democrat  was  I.  Freeman  Rasin, 
the  late  Democratic  boss  of  Baltimore.  Having  gradu- 
ated from  the  turbulent  school  of  Know  Nothing  ante- 
bellum politics,  he  has  utilized  his  training  in  Know  Noth- 
ing methods  with  eminent  success. 

The  period  of  the  Know  Nothing  party  in  Baltimore  will 
always  be  looked  back  to  as  one  of  violence  and  disorder. 
For  this  the  Know  Nothings  were  not  altogether  responsi- 
ble. They  were  more  of  a  condition  than  a  cause  of  the 
disorder.  Outside  of  the  police  department  and  the  fraud- 
ulent methods  in  use  at  the  elections,  the  administration 
of  the  Know  Nothings  was  good.  The  finances  were  well 
administered,  and  a  progressive  policy  of  municipal  im- 
provement was  undertaken.  Under  Swann  especially  was 
the  financial  administration  good.  He  had  been  president 
of  the  Baltimore  and  Ohio  Railroad,  and  had  considerable 
experience.  Under  him  the  various  city  departments  were 
reorganized  and  the  office  of  Comptroller  was  created.1 
Various  municipal  enterprises,  such  as  the  purchase  of 
Druid  Hill  Park,  the  construction  of  a  new  jail,  introduc- 
tion of  the  paid  fire  department,  with  steam  engines,  and 
the  police  and  fire  alarm  telegraph  were  instituted  or  car- 
ried to  completion.  These  improvements  would  probably 
have  come  in  any  event,  but  it  is  worth  noting  that  the 
Know  Nothing  administration  in  Baltimore  was  neither 
retrogressive  nor  behind  the  spirit  of  the  times.  A  rather 
unique  institution  was  the  so-called  "Floating  School,"  es- 
tablished by  the  Ordinance  of  May  30,  1855.  This  was  a 
nautical  school  to  be  used  by  the  Board  of  Trade  to  train 
sailors. 

1  Ordinances,  1857,  No.  8.    Mayor's  Message,  1858,  in  Journal  First 
Branch  City  Council,  1858,  7. 


VI.    CONCLUSION. 

We  have  been  considering  a  period  in  American  history 
almost  unparalleled  in  violence  and  bitterness.  There  has 
probably  been  no  party  in  the  history  of  the  country  more 
cordially  hated  by  its  opponents  than  were  the  Know  Noth- 
ings. Even  to-day  we  find  traces  of  this  animus.  But  on 
the  other  hand  most  of  the  survivors  of  the  party  will  speak 
of  it  as  the  grandest  party  that  ever  existed.  Looking  back 
it  seems  almost  ludicrous  to  find  men  seriously  thinking 
that  the  liberties  of  America  were  in  danger  from  the  feeble 
old  pontiff  who  was  so  soon  to  have  his  temporal  possessions 
snatched  away  by  those  of  his  own  faith.  But  there  were 
local  provocations  which  stirred  up  a  justifiable  resentment, 
which,  however,  soon  exceeded  all  rational  limits  and  sank 
to  the  level  of  bigoted  intolerance  and  proscription.  But 
we  must  not  judge  the  men  of  almost  half  a  century  ago  by 
the  more  tolerant  and  enlightened  spirit  of  the  present  day. 
It  must  be  remembered  that  the  Know  Nothings  existed 
in  a  time  when  William  Lloyd  Garrison  openly  burned  the- 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  at  Framingham,  Mass., 
and  denounced  it  as  "an  agreement  with  hell,"1  because  it 
recognized  the  institution  of  slavery ;  at  a  time  when  Repre- 
sentative Brooke,  of  South  Carolina,  could  make  a  cowardly 
assault  upon  Senator  Sumner  in  the  Senate  of  the  United 
States  while  members  turned  their  backs  and  declined  to 
help  the  defenseless  man,  and  the  assailant  was  unanimously 
re-elected  by  his  district,  and  applauded  as  a  gallant  gentle- 
man.2 The  Know  Nothing  party  was  a  child  of  the  age. 
It  has  been  made  the  scapegoat  of  many  evils  that  were  com- 

1  "  Life  of  Wm.  Lloyd  Garrison,"  by  his  Children,  III,  88,  412. 

2  James  Ford  Rhodes,  II,  115,  224. 

116 


261]  Conclusion.  117 

mon  to  all  the  political  parties  of  the  time.  Nor  must  it  be 
thought  that  the  disorderly  faction  represented  the  majority 
of  the  party.  The  word  "Know  Nothing"  has  become  largely 
a  synonym  for  all  that  is  bad  in  politics,  but  thousands  of 
worthy  citizens  who  did  not  all  sympathize  with  the  rough 
methods  of  the  clubs,  went  into  the  movement  honestly 
thinking  that  in  it  alone  rested  the  salvation  of  the  country. 

Several  valuable  lessons  might  be  deduced  from  the 
course  of  this  party.  In  the  first  place,  the  Catholic  Church 
should  learn  the  lesson  that  the  American  people  will  not 
tolerate  any  interference  with  the  public  school  system  of 
the  country,  nor  will  they  suffer  any  ecclesiastics  to  inter- 
fere in  American  politics.  On  the  other  hand,  the  extreme 
to  which  this  party  carried  opposition  to  the  Catholic 
Church  should  warn  Protestants  against  political  tricksters 
who  make  political  capital  out  of  religious  differences. 
Even  to-day  we  see  in  our  midst  an  organization  which 
proposes  to  believe  that  America,  with  a  great  Protestant 
majority,  is  in  danger  from  a  power  which  cannot  assert 
political  rights  in  a  nation  where  practically  all  are  of  the 
same  faith.  Such  intolerance  and  fears  were  somewhat 
excusable  two  generations  back ;  on  the  eve  of  the  twentieth 
century  they  are  entirely  out  of  place. 

Looking  back  upon  this  turbulent  era  what  a  contrast 
does  it  present  to  the  Nation  of  to-day.  Only  within  a  few 
years  we  have  seen  a  presidential  campaign  in  which  great 
interests  were  at  stake :  in  which  great  excitement  was  dis- 
played, but  which  was  decided  peacefully  and  acquiesced 
in  quietly  by  the  people.  More  recently  we  have  gone 
through  a  war  which  was  preceded  by  incidents  which  were 
well  calculated  to  try  the  patience  of  the  people.  But 
throughout  it  all  there  was  only  a  calm  self-restraint  and 
reliance  in  the  Government,  and  men  of  all  shades  of  opin- 
ion stood  firm  together  in  its  support.  The  majority  of 
voters  of  to-day,  who  calmly  go  to  the  polls,  and  mark  their 
ballots  in  the  little  booth,  can  hardly  realize  how  different 
this  is  from  the  conduct  of  elections  forty  years  ago.  To 


118       History  of  Know  Nothing  Party  in  Maryland.     [262 

one  who  has  read  the  newspapers  of  the  period,  the  picture 
of  riot  and  disorder  is  almost  as  vivid  (and  fresher  in  mind) 
than  to  those  who  lived  through  it.  We  are  far  from  the 
millennium  in  our  civic  life;  we  have  many  grave  defects 
and  faults  which  are  to  be  remedied,  but  we  should  not 
despair.  The  only  way  to  overcome  evil  is  to  fight  it,  and 
if  the  last  four  decades  have  wrought  such  a  change  for 
the  better,  what  may  not  the  next  four  decades  bring  forth? 


APPENDIX  A. 
NATIONAL  PLATFORM   1855. 

1.  The  acknowledgment  of  that  Almighty  Being  who 
rules  over  the  universe — who  presides  over  the  Councils  of 
Nations — who  conducts  the  affairs  of  men,  and  who,  in  every 
step  by  which  we  have  advanced  to  the  character  of  an 
independent  Nation,  has  distinguished  us  by  some  token  of 
Providential  agency. 

2.  The  cultivation  and  development  of  a  sentiment  of 
profoundly  intense  American  feeling,  of  passionate  attach- 
ment to  our  country,  its  history  and  its  institutions ;  of  ad- 
miration for  the  purer  days  of  our  national  existence ;  of 
veneration  for  the  heroism  that  precipitated  our  Revolu- 
tion, and  of  emulation  of  the  virtue,  wisdom  and  patriotism 
that  framed  our  Constitution,  and  first  successfully  applied 
its  provisions. 

3.  The  maintenance  of  the  union  of  these  United  States, 
as  the  paramount  political  good ;  or,  to  use  the  language  of 
Washington,  "the  primary  object  of  patriotic  desire."   And 
hence — 

First — Opposition  to  all  attempts  to  weaken  or  subvert  it. 

Second — Uncompromising  antagonism  to  every  princi- 
ple of  policy  that  endangers  it. 

Third — The  advocacy  of  an  equitable  adjustment  of  all 
political  differences  which  threaten  its  integrity  or  per- 
petuity. 

Fourth — The  suppression  of  all  tendencies  to  political 
division,  founded  on  "geographical  discriminations,  or  on 
the  belief  that  there  is  a  real  difference  of  interests  and 
views"  between  the  various  sections  of  the  Union. 

119 


120  Appendix.  [264 

Fifth — The  full  recognition  of  the  rights  of  the  several 
States,  as  expressed  and  reserved  in  the  Constitution,  and  a 
careful  avoidance  by  the  general  government  of  all  inter- 
ference with  their  rights  by  legislative  or  executive  action. 

4.  Obedience  to  the  Constitution  of  these  United  States 
as  the  supreme  law  of  the  land,  sacredly  obligatory  upon 
all  its  parts  and  members;  and  steadfast  resistance  to  the 
spirit  of  innovation  upon  its  principles,  however  specious 
the  pretexts.     Avowing  that  in  all  doubtful   or  disputed 
pionts  it  may  only  be  legally  ascertained  and  expounded  by 
the  judicial  power  of  the  United  States. 

First — A  habit  of  reverential  obedience  to  the  laws, 
whether  national,  State  or  municipal,  until  they  are  re- 
pealed or  declared  unconstitutional  by  the  proper  authority. 

Second — A  tender  and  sacred  regard  for  those  acts  of 
statesmanship  which  are  to  be  contradistinguished  from 
acts  of  ordinary  legislation  by  the  fact  of  their  being  of  the 
nature  of  compacts  and  agreements ;  and  so,  to  be  consid- 
ered a  fixed  and  settled  national  policy. 

5.  A  radical  revision  and  modification  of  the  laws  regu- 
lating immigration,  and  the  settlement  of  immigrants,  offer- 
ing the  honest  immigrant,  who  from  love  of  liberty  or 
hatred  of  oppression,  seeks  an  asylum  in  the  United  States, 
a  friendly  reception  and  protection,  but  unqualifiedly  con- 
demning  the   transmission   to   our   shores    of   felons    and 
paupers. 

6.  The  essential  modification  of  the  naturalization  laws. 
The  repeal  by  the  Legislatures  of  the  respective  States  of 

all  State  laws  allowing  foreigners  not  naturalized  to  vote. 
The  repeal,  without  retrospective  operation,  of  all  acts  of 
Congress  making  grants  of  land  to  unnaturalized  foreign- 
ers, and  allowing  them  to  vote  in  the  territories. 

7.  Hostility  to  the  corrupt  means  by  which  the  leaders  of 
party  have  hitherto  forced  upon  us  our  rulers  and  our  politi- 
cal creeds. 

Implacable  enmity  against  the  present  demoralizing  sys- 
tem of  rewards  for  political  subserviency,  and  of  punish- 
ments for  political  independence. 


265]  Appendix.  121 

Disgust  for  the  wild  hunt  after  office  which  characterizes 
the  age. 

These  on  the  one  hand.  On  the  other — 
Imitation  of  the  practice  of  the  purer  days  of  the  Repub- 
lic, and  admiration  of  the  maxim  that  "office  should  seek 
the  man,  and  not  man  the  office,"  and  of  the  rule  that  the 
just  mode  of  ascertaining  fitness  for  office  is  the  capability, 
the  faithfulness  and  the  honesty  of  the  incumbent  candidate. 

8.  Resistance  to  the  aggressive  policy  and  corrupting 
tendencies  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  in  our  country 
by  the  advancement  to  all  political  stations — executive,  leg- 
islative, judicial  or  diplomatic — of  those  only  who  do  not 
hold  civil  allegiance,  directly  or  indirectly,  to  any  foreign 
power,  whether  civil  or  ecclesiastical,  and  who  are  Ameri- 
cans by  birth,  education  and  training,  thus  fulfilling  the 
maxim,  "Americans  only  shall  govern  America." 

The  protection  of  all  citizens  in  the  legal  and  proper  ex- 
ercise of  their  civil  and  religious  rights  and  privileges ;  the 
maintenance  of  the  right  of  every  man  to  the  full,  unre- 
strained and  peaceful  enjoyment  of  his  own  religious  opin- 
ions and  worships,  and  a  jealous  resistance  of  all  attempts 
by  any  sect,  denomination,  or  church  to  obtain  an  ascend- 
ancy over  any  other  in  the  State,  by  means  of  any  special 
privilege  or  exemption,  by  any  political  combination  of  its 
members,  or  by  a  division  of  their  civil  allegiance  with  any 
foreign  power,  potentate  or  ecclesiastic. 

9.  The  reformation  of  the  character  of  our  National  Leg- 
islature, by  elevating  to  that  dignified  and  responsible  posi- 
tion men  of  higher  qualifications,  purer  morals,  and  more 
unselfish  patriotism. 

10.  The  restriction  of  executive  patronage — especially  in 
the  matter  of  appointments  to  office — so  far  as  it  may  be 
permitted  by  the  Constitution,  and  consistent  with  the  pub- 
lic good. 

11.  The  education  of  the  youth  of  our  country  in  schools 
provided  by  the  State,  which  schools  shall  be  common  to 
all,  without  distinction  of  creed  or  party,  and  free  from  any 


122  Appendix.  [266 

influence  or  direction  of  a  denominational  or  partisan  char- 
acter. 

And,  inasmuch  as  .Christianity,  by  the  Constitutions  of 
nearly  all  the  States ;  by  the  decisions  of  most  eminent  judi- 
cial authorities,  and  by  the  consent  of  the  people  of 
America,  is  considered  an  element  of  our  political  system, 
and  the  Holy  Bible  is  at  once  the  source  of  Christianity  and 
the  depository  and  fountain  of  all  civil  and  religious  free- 
dom, we  oppose  every  attempt  to  exclude  it  from  the 
schools  thus  established  in  the  States. 

12.  The  American  party,  having  arisen  upon  the  ruins, 
and  in  spite  of  the  opposition  of  the  Whig  and  Democratic 
parties,  cannot  be  held  in  any  manner  responsible  for  the 
obnoxious  acts  or  violated  pledges  of  either.  And  the  sys- 
tematic agitation  of  the  slavery  question  by  those  parties 
having  elevated  sectional  hostility  into  a  positive  element 
of  political  power,  and  brought  our  institutions  into  peril, 
it  has,  therefore,  become  the  imperative  duty  of  the  Ameri- 
can party  to  interpose  for  the  purpose  of  giving  peace  to 
the  country  and  perpetuity  to  the  Union.  And  as  experi- 
ence has  shown  it  impossible  to  reconcile  opinions  so  ex- 
treme as  those  which  separate  the  disputants,  and  as  there 
can  be  no  dishonor  in  submitting  to  the  laws,  the  National 
Council  has  deemed  it  the  best  guarantee  of  common  jus- 
tice and  of  future  peace  to  abide  by  and  maintain  the  exist- 
ing laws  upon  the  subject  of  slavery,  as  a  final  and  con- 
clusive settlement  of  that  subject,  in  fact  and  in  substance. 
And,  regarding  it  the  highest  duty  to  avow  their  opinions 
upon  a  subject  so  important  in  distinct  and  unequivocal 
terms,  it  is  hereby  declared  as  the  sense  of  this  National 
Council  that  Congress  possessed  no  power  under  the  Con- 
stitution to  legislate  upon  the  subject  of  slavery  in  the 
States,  where  it  does  or  may  exist,  or  to  exclude  any  State 
from  admission  into  the  Union  because  its  Constitution 
does  or  does  not  recognize  the  institution  of  slavery  as  a 
part  of  its  social  system,  and  expressly  pretermitting  any  ex- 
pression of  opinion  upon  the  power  of  Congress  to  establish 


267]  Appendix.  123 

or  prohibit  slavery  in  any  territory,  it  is  the  sense  of  the  Na- 
tional Council  that  Congress  ought  not  to  legislate  upon 
the  subject  of  slavery  within  the  territory  of  the  United 
States,  and  that  any  interference  by  Congress  with  slavery 
as  it  exists  in  the  District  of  Columbia  would  be  a  violation 
of  the  spirit  and  intention  of  the  compact  by  which  the 
State  of  Maryland  ceded  the  district  to  the  United  States, 
and  a  breach  of  the  national  faith. 

13.  The  policy  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States, 
in  its  relations  with  foreign  governments,  is  to  exact  justice 
from  the  strongest  and  do  justice  to  the  weakest,  restrain- 
ing by  all  the  power  of  the  Government  all  its  citizens  from 
interfering  with  the  internal  concerns  of  nations  with  whom 
we  are  at  peace. 

14.  This  National  Council  declares  that  all  the  principles 
of  the  order  shall  be  henceforth  everywhere  openly  avowed, 
and  that  each  member  shall  be  at  liberty  to  make  known 
the  existence  of  the  order,  and  the  fact  that  he  himself  is  a 
member,  and  it  recommends  that  there  be  no  concealment 
of  the  places  of  meeting  of  subordinate  councils. 

APPENDIX   B. 
NATIONAL   PLATFORM,   1856. 

An  humble  acknowledgment  to  the  Supreme  Being  for 
his  protecting  care  vouchsafed  to  our  fathers  in  their  suc- 
cessful Revolutionary  struggle,  and  hitherto  manifested  to 
us,  their  descendants,  in  the  preservation  of  the  liberties,  the 
independence  and  the  union  of  these  States. 

2.  The  perpetuation  of  the  Federal  Union,  as  the  pal- 
ladium of  our  civil  and  religious  liberties,  and  the  only  sure 
bulwark  of  American  independence. 

3.  Americans    must    rule    America,    and    to    this    end, 
native-born  citizens  should  be  selected  for  all  State  and 
municipal  offices,  or  government  employment,  in  prefer- 
ence to  all  others  ;   nevertheless, 


124  Appendix.  [268 

4.  Persons  born  of  American  parents  residing  tempo- 
rarily abroad  should  be  entitled  to  all  the  rights  of  native- 
born  citizens;    but 

5.  No  person  should  be  selected    for    political    station 
(whether  of  native  or  foreign  birth)  who  recognizes  any 
allegiance  or  obligation  of  any  description  to  any  foreign 
prince,  potentate  or  power,  or  who  refuses  to  recognize  the 
Federal  and  State  Constitutions  (each  within  its  sphere)  as 
paramount  to  all  other  laws  as  issues  of  political  action. 

6.  The  unqualified  recognition  and  maintenance  of  the 
reserved  rights  of  the  several  States,  and  the  cultivation 
of  harmony  and  fraternal  good- will  between  the  citizens  of 
the  several  States,  and  to  this  end,  non-interference  by  Con- 
gress with  questions  appertaining  solely  to  the  individual 
States,  and  non-intervention  by  each  State  with  the  affairs 
of  any  other  State. 

7.  The  recognition  of  the  right  of  the  native-born  and 
naturalized  citizens  of  the  United  States,  permanently  re- 
siding in  any  territory  thereof,  to  frame  their  Constitution 
and  laws,  and  to  regulate  their  domestic  and  social  affairs 
in  their  own  mode,  subject  only  to  the  provisions  of  the 
Federal  Constitution,  with  the  privilege  of  admission  into 
the  Union  whenever  they  have  the  requisite  population  for 
one   representative   in    Congress.      Provided   always,    that 
none  but  those  who  are  citizens  of  the  United  States,  under 
the  Constitution  and  laws  thereof,  and  who  have  a  fixed 
residence  in  any  such  territory,  ought  to  participate  in  u.e 
formation  of  the  Constitution  or  in  the  enactment  of  laws 
for  said  territory  or  States. 

8.  An  enforcement  of  the    principle    that    no    State    or 
territory  ought  to  admit  others  than  citizens  of  the  United 
States  to  the  right  of  suffrage,  or  of  holding  political  office. 

9.  A  change  in  the  laws    of    naturalization,    making    a 
continued  residence  of  twenty-one  years,  of  all  not  herein- 
before provided  for,  an  indispensable  requisite  for  citizen- 
ship hereafter,  and  excluding  all  paupers,  and  persons  con- 
victed of  crime,  from  landing  upon  our  shores,  but  no  inter- 
ference with  the  vested  rights  of  foreigners. 


269]  Appendix.  125 

10.  Opposition    to    any    union    between    Church    and 
State;   no  interference  with  religious  faith  or  worship,  and 
no  test-oaths  for  office. 

11.  Free  and  thorough  investigation   into   any  and  all 
alleged  abuses  of  public  functionaries,  and  a  strict  economy 
in  public  expenditures. 

12.  The  maintenance  and  enforcement  of  all  laws  con- 
stitutionally enacted,  until  said  laws  shall  be  repealed,  or 
shall  be  declared  null  and  void  by  competent  judicial  au- 
thority. 

13.  Opposition  to  the  reckless  and  unwise  policy  of  the 
present  administration  in  the  general  management  of  our 
National  affairs,  and  more  especially  as  shown  in  removing 
"Americans"  by  designation  and  conservative  in  principle 
from  office,  and  placing  foreigners    and   ultraists   in   their 
places;    as    shown    in    a    truckling    subserviency    to   the 
stronger  and  an  insolent  and  cowardly  bravado  towards  the 
weaker  powers;   as  shown  in  reopening  sectional  agitation 
by  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise;  as  shown  in 
granting  to  unnaturalized  foreigners  the  right  of  suffrage  in 
Kansas  and  Nebraska  ;  as  shown  in  its  vacillating  course 
on  the  Kansas  and  Nebraska  question ;  as  shown  in  the  cor- 
ruptions which  pervade  some  of  the  departments  of  the 
Government;   as   shown   in   disgracing   meritorious   naval 
officers  through  prejudice  or  caprice;  and  as  shown  in  the 
blundering  mismanagement  of  our  foreign  relations. 

14.  Therefore,    to   remedy    existing    evils,    and   prevent 
the  disastrous  consequences  otherwise  resulting  therefrom, 
we  would  build  up  the  "American  party"  upon  the  prin- 
ciple hereinbefore  stated. 

15.  That  each  State    Council    shall    have    authority    to 
amend  their  several  Constitutions,  so  as  to  abolish  the  sev- 
eral degrees,  and  institute  a  pledge    of   honor   instead    of 
other  obligations   for  fellowship  and   admission  into   the 
party. 

1 6.  A  free  and  open  discussion  of  all  the  political  prin- 
ciples embraced  in  our  platform. 


THE  LABADIST  COLONY 


IN 


MARYLAND 


SERIES  XVII  No.  6 

JOHNS  HOPKINS  UNIVERSITY  STUDIES 

IN 

HISTORICAL   AND   POLITICAL   SCIENCE 

HERBERT  B.  ADAMS,  Editor 


History  is  past  Politics  and  Politics  are  present  History. — Freeman 


THE   LABADIST   COLONY 


IN 


MARYLAND 


BY 

BARTLETT  B.  JAMES,  Ph.D. 


THE  JOHNS  HOPKINS  PRESS,  BALTIMORE 

PUBLISHED  MONTHLY 

JUNE,  .1899 


COPYRIGHT  1899  BY  N.   MURRAY. 


CONTENTS. 


PAGE 

Introduction     7 

Doctrines  of  the  Labadists 9 

Government  of  the  Labadists 15 

Labadie  and  the  Labadists 20 

Colonization  in  America 26 

Labadists  and  the  Manor 38 

Bibliography 43 


The  Labadist  Colony  in  Maryland. 


INTRODUCTION. 

This  monograph  treats  of  what  was  practically  a  lost 
chapter  in  the  early  history  of  Maryland.  In  the  year  1864 
Mr.  Henry  C.  Murphy,  then  corresponding  member  of  the 
Long  Island  Historical  Society,  discovered  in  an  old  book 
store  in  Amsterdam  a  manuscript  which  proved  to  be  the 
journal  of  two  commissioners,  sent  out  by  a  peculiar  reli- 
gious body,  that  had  originated  in  a  defection  from  the  Re- 
formed Church  of  The  Netherlands,  to  discover  in  the  new 
world  a  suitable  place  for  the  establishment  of  a  colony  that 
should  perpetuate  their  principles. 

Prior  to  the  discovery  of  this  document,  it  was  indeed 
traditionally  known  that  a  peculiar  sect  of  people,  called 
Labadists,  had  settled  on  the  estates  of  Augustine  Herrman 
in  the  first  half  of  the  seventeenth  century.  Nor  had  the  fact 
only  a  traditional  basis,  for  there  were  indeed  fragmentary 
references  to  these  people  in  the  early  records  of  the  State 
and  in  historical  manuscripts,  as  well  as  occasional  isolated 
notices  in  contemporary  writers.  But,  withal,  the  informa- 
tion was  so  meager  as  to  preclude  the  possibility  of  a  proper 
conception  of  their  place  or  importance  in  the  early  history 
of  the  State. 

Mr.  Murphy  translated  and  published  the  manuscript  in 
the  "Memoirs  of  the  Long  Island  Historical  Society."  He 
accompanied  it  with  an  introductory  sketch  of  the  rise  and 
development  of  the  Labadists  sufficient  to  assign  it  to  its 
proper  place  among  the  historical  documents  of  the  State. 
Since  Mr.  Murphy's  publication,  the  "Bohemia  Manor" 

7 


8  The  Labadist  Colony  in  Maryland.  [278 

has  received  the  attention  of  two  persons,  whose  family 
affiliation  with  its  history  renders  them  peculiarly  com- 
petent to  undertake  its  recital.  I  refer  to  General  James 
Grant  Wilson,  who  delivered  an  address  on  "An  Old  Mary- 
land Manor/'  before  the  Maryland  Historical  Society,  in 
1890,  and  another  address  before  the  New  Jersey  Historical 
Society  in  the  same  year,  on  "Augustine  Herrman,  Bohe- 
mian, 1605-1686,"  besides  an  extended  sketch  of  the  manor, 
in  the  Dutch- American  Magazine,  for  1886;  and  the  Rev. 
Charles  Payson  Mallary,  who  issued  a  monograph  on  "The 
Ancient  Families  of  Bohemia  Manor,"  in  1888,  in  the  publi- 
cations of  the  Delaware  Historical  Society.  While  treating 
exhaustively  of  the  history  of  "Bohemia  Manor"  proper, 
neither  of  these  gentlemen  have  contributed  anything  to 
that  important  phase  of  its  history,  a  study  of  which  is  con- 
templated in  the  present  monograph.  It  seems  unfortunate 
that  an  important  chapter  in  the  religious  life  of  colonial 
Maryland  should  so  long  have  failed  of  adequate  treat- 
ment, a  failure  due,  however,  to  the  unavailability  of 
material.  There  is  indeed  no  lack  of  materials  for  a  proper 
study  of  the  Labadists,  but  such  materials  have  been  inac- 
cessible because,  with  few  exceptions,  they  were  not  to  be 
found  in  this  country.  The  writer  has  succeeded  in  obtain- 
ing from  abroad  a  number  of  the  contemporary  sources  and 
authoritative  works  bearing  upon  the  subject,  and  has 
sought  to  embody  such  research  in  a  paper  designed  to  set 
forth  a  history  of  the  rise  and  development  of  Labadism,  and 
of  that  system  of  doctrine,  religious  polity  and  administra- 
tion, which  was  so  faithfully  reproduced  by  the  colony 
beyond  the  seas.  By  availing  himself  of  the  materials 
already  at  hand  it  has  been  possible  to  write  a  history  of  the 
Labadist  settlement  on  "Bohemia  Manor,"  such  as  was  pre- 
viously impracticable. 


CHAPTER  I. 

DOCTRINES  OF  THE  LABADISTS. 

Labadism  was  a  late  product  of  that  spirit  of  reform 
which  inaugurated  the  Protestant  systems.  Theologically, 
it  belonged  to  the  school  of  Calvin.  In  its  spirit,  however, 
it  was  in  the  direct  line  of  that  vein  of  mysticism  which  is 
met  throughout  the  history  of  the  Christian  Church.  In  the 
mode  of  life  which  it  prescribed,  it  was  conformable  to  that 
sentiment  of  ideal  brotherhood,  which,  though  not  dis- 
tinctively a  Christian  conception,  has  been  ever  a  favorite 
mode  of  representing  the  fellowship  of  Christian  believers. 

Its  theology  was  not  distinctive  enough  to  differentiate 
it  from  the  Reformed  Church  of  The  Netherlands,  of  which 
it  was  an  off-shoot.  But  there  were  certain  individual 
characteristics  in  Labadism  sufficient  to  give  it  a  character 
quite  distinct  from  that  of  the  established  church.  Yet,  as 
will  be  noticed  later,  these  distinctive  elements  in  Labadism 
embraced  no  principle  vital  enough  to  insure  their  perpetua- 
tion. At  best,  Labadism  was  a  sporadic  effort  to  effect  a 
reform  in  the  established  church,  to  infuse  a  sentiment  of 
deeper  fervor  in  its  formal  administrations,  and  to  awaken 
in  the  believer  devoutness  of  spirit  by  enjoining  austerities 
of  life,  abnegation  of  the  flesh,  and  renunciation  of  the  world. 

Though,  like  most  profoundly  spiritual  movements,  it 
was  influenced  by  its  millennial  hopes,  yet  it  would  be  an 
error  to  place  Labadism  in  the  category  of  those  Adventist 
sects  which  have  a  brief  existence,  as  prophets  of  the  coming 
kingdom,  only  to  decline  when  the  time  of  the  supposed 
Advent  has  passed  by.  These  millennial  hopes  were  not  a 
part  of  the  system  itself,  but  only  an  expression  of  that 
spirit  of  profound  pietism  which,  in  response  to  the 

9 


10  The  Labadist  Colony  in  Maryland.  [280 

announcement,  "Behold,  I  come  quickly!"  yearningly 
responds,  "Even  so,  come,  Lord  Jesus !" 

The  influences  which  shaped  Labadism  must  be  sought 
in  the  theological  controversies  of  the  day — controversies 
which,  as  one  of  the  Dutch  writers  expresses  it,  "warmed 
the  head  and  cooled  the  heart."  The  Cartesian  and  Aristo- 
telian schools  of  philosophy  found  their  counterparts  in  the 
Church  in  the  adherents  respectively  of  John  Kock  and 
Gysbert  Voet.  The  Cocceian  was  the  more  influential,  the 
Voetian  the  more  evangelical.  The  Labadists  were  a  radi- 
cal development  in  the  Voetian  party,  until  their  separation 
from  the  Reformed  Church.  Labadism  emphasized  the  vig- 
orous protest  of  the  Voetian  party  against  the  moral  laxity 
and  spiritual  lassitude  countenanced  by  the  established 
Church. 

The  theology  of  Labadism  may  be  briefly  summarized 
from  the  catechism  prepared  by  du  Lignon,  a  prominent 
member  of  the  Labadist  community,  as  well  as  from  other 
contemporary  sources,  to  which  the  writer  has  had  access.1 

The  progressive  plan  of  God  for  the  salvation  of  the 
race  was  embraced. in  four  covenants.  The  first  was  one  of 
nature  and  of  works.  This  was  a  race  covenant  and  was 
based  on  the  laws  of  God  as  implanted  in  human  nature. 
Its  infringement  by  Adam,  produced  from  the  inexhaustible 
stores  of  God's  goodness,  the  second  covenant,  "more  excel- 
lent and  holy  than  the  first" — that  of  grace.  During  the 
continuance  of  this  race  covenant,  which  extended  up  to  the 
coming  of  Christ,  and  which  provided  for  the  salvation — 
through  the  merits  of  the  promised  Redeemer — of  all  who 
came  within  its  provisions,  there  was  established  a  special 
covenant  with  Abraham.  The  benefits  of  this  covenant 
extended  to  all  his  posterity,  and  to  those  who  became  his 
spiritual  children  by  entering  into  his  belief.  Its  sign  was 

XP.  du  Lignon:  "Catechismus  of  Christelyke  onderwyzinge,"  etc., 
pt.  III.  Koelman,  J.:  "Historisch  Verhael  nopende  der  Labadisten 
Scheuringh,"  Preface,  v. 


281]  Doctrines  of  the  Labadists.  11 

circumcision,  and  the  salvation  of  those  who  received  it  was 
no  longer  conditionally  provided  for  under  the  general 
covenant  of  grace,  but  was  assured  through  especial  calling 
and  election.  This  covenant  was  superseded  by  a  special 
covenant  with  Moses.  It  is  described  by  du  Lignon  as 
"typical,  ceremonial,  literal  and  entirely  external;  hence, 
only  designed  as  temporary  in  order  to  set  forth  the  grace 
and  truth  of  Christ  by  symbols."1  The  Israelites  were 
united  to  God  by  the  covenant  of  grace  and  the  outward 
covenant  as  well,  but  all  other  races  could  be  united  to  God 
only  by  the  outward  covenant.  But  this  ceremonial  covenant 
was  only  intended  to  prepare  the  way  for  the  reception  of 
Christ.  As  Christ  had  been  manifested  in  the  time  of  the 
patriarchs  by  sacraments,  promises,  visions  and  the  com- 
munication of  his  spirit,  so  now  under  the  covenant  with 
Israel  he  was  revealed  by  fuller  and  more  frequent  prophe- 
cies, by  sacraments  and  shadows,  by  revelations  and  appear- 
ances, and  by  the  outpouring  of  the  spirit. 

But  the  fourth  and  last  covenant  was  the  consummation 
of  the  revelation  of  Christ  and  of  the  plan  of  salvation.  It 
differed  from  the  covenant  entered  into  with  Adam  in  that 
it  was  not  hidden  under  a  cloak  of  ceremonials.  It  was  also 
a  covenant  of  fulfillment  instead  of  one  of  promise;  it  was 
clearer,  holier  and  more  exalted  than  its  predecessors. 
Faith  was  its  condition,  obedience  its  sign.  It  included  in 
its  gracious  provisions  only  the  elect.  The  heart  was  con- 
ceived of  as  a  tablet  on  which  was  inscribed  the  law  of  love. 
Pardon,  holiness  and  salvation  were  its  fruits.  This  cove- 
nant placed  the  renewed  spirit,  which  it  provided  in  contra- 
distinction to  the  works  of  the  law.  The  new  spirit  made 
possible  a  new  life.  The  symbols  of  this  covenant  as  insti- 
tuted by  Christ  were  baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper.  When 
the  Lord  had  sealed  this  covenant  by  his  death  and  ascen- 

1  "Catechismus,"  III,  16.  A.  M.  van  Schurman:  "Eucleria  Seu 
Melioris  Partis  Electio,"  p.  9,  v.  v.  "Historisch  Verhael,"  etc., 
p.  252.  Yvon:  "De  regten  aard  van't  oude  en  nieuwe  verbond." 


12  The  Labadist  Colony  in  Maryland.  [282 

sion,  he  sent  the  Holy  Spirit  to  lead  into  it  his  elect  and  to 
keep  them  under  its  provisions. 

The  Holy  Spirit  is  conceived  of  as  operating  through 
the  Scriptures  and  the  administration  of  the  sacraments,  as 
well  as  by  the  more  direct  way  of  immediate  communication 
to  the  souls  of  the  elect  or  faithful,  his  presence  in  the  heart 
being  indicated  by  the  conduct  of  the  believer.  The  Church 
was  to  be  a  community  of  the  elect  kept  separate  from  the 
world  by  its  pure  teachings.  This  Church  was  to  be  uni- 
versal and  holy,  comprehending  all  believers;  the  love  of 
the  truth  as  it  is  in  Christ  Jesus,  being  the  common  bond. 
Outside  of  this  Church  there  was  no  safety,  and  from  it 
there  could  be  no  severance.1  It  was  to  be  distinguished  by 
two  great  periods :  the  one  of  sorrow,  conflict,  work  and 
crosses;  the  other  of  triumph  and  honor,  the  millennial 
reign  on  earth  of  the  Church  triumphant.2 

Those  who  were  uncircumcised,  impure,  and  abomina- 
tions of  desolation3  were  represented  to  have  crept  into  the 
fold,  but  with  such  the  members  of  the  true  spiritual  Church 
were  to  have  no  communion.  To  this  doctrine  of  the  sep- 
aration of  the  believer  from  the  unbeliever  is  directly  attri- 
butable the  communal  mode  of  life  of  the  Labadists.4  In  its 
rigid  application  it  made  it  the  duty  of  husband  and  wife 
to  separate  if  either  were  not  of  the  elect  Church.  The 
elect  Church  came  to  be  synonymous  with  the  Church  of  the 
Labadists,  so  that  a  Labadist  could  not  be  lawfully  united  to 
one  who  was  outside  of  his  belief.  This  necessary  conse- 
quence of  the  doctrine  of  the  separation  of  believers  and 
unbelievers  was  embodied  in  an  explicit  tenet,  as  follows : 
"Beide  personen  begenadigd  en  wedergeboren  zyn,  omdat 

1  "Het  Heylige  voor  de  Heyligen,"  p.  724.  "Eucleria,"  p.  152.  J. 
de  Labadie:  "Le  He"raut  du  grand  Roi  J6sus." 

2H.  van  Demeter,  "Saatste  monarchic,"  in  his  work:  "De  opend 
vanje"sus  Christ." 

3 "  Eucleria,"  pp.  196,  202. 

*"Catechismus,"  III.  De  Labadie:  "Wedergeboren  of  geen 
Christen." 


283]  Doctrines  of  the  Labadists.  13 

anders  het  huwelyk  niet  heilig  kan  zyn  en  een  geloovige 
moet  geen  juk  aandoen  met  een  angeloovige."1 

Another  important  element  of  the  new  covenant  was 
freedom  from  the  dominion  of  law.  The  only  law  to  which 
the  believer  was  subject  was  the  new  law  of  Spirit  and  of 
love.  The  effect  of  this  doctrine  as  applied  by  the  Labadists, 
was  to  nullify  the  ceremonial  system  of  the  Old  Testament, 
and  to  reduce  to  a  position  of  incidental  importance  all  its 
specific  moral  injunctions.  With  this  conception,  the  law  of 
Sabbath  observance  lost  its  importance.  As  a  part  of  the 
old  Jewish  system  it  failed  of  honor  among  them.  But,  in 
effect,  the  Labadists  did  observe  the  Sabbath  as  a  rest  day, 
not  on  conscientious  grounds,  but  in  consideration  of  the 
scruples  of  others ;  in  other  words,  so  that  they  might  not 
render  themselvs  legally  amenable  to  the  civil  authorities2 
for  its  infraction. 

As  none  save  the  true  believers  were  included  in  the  new 
covenant,  so  evidently  no  others  had  a  right  to  the  signs  and 
seals  of  this  covenant.  This  was  the  basis  of  the  Labadists' 
doctrines  concerning  the  Lord's  Supper  and  baptism.  Bap- 
tism, according  to  the  Labadist  formula,  insured  the  wash- 
ing away  of  sins  and  the  sealing  of  a  new  covenant  of  grace 
with  God.3 

Infant  baptism  was  discountenanced,  because  it  could 
not  be  told  beforehand  whether  the  child  would  grow  up  as 
the  elect  of  God  in  grace  or  increase  in  sins.  Yet  the  bap- 
tism of  the  children  of  believers  was  not  actually  proscribed 
by  the  Labadists.  In  lieu  of  infant  baptism,  the  child  was 
brought  before  the  Church,  presented,  consecrated  and 
blessed. 

1  Both  persons  must  be  pardoned  and  regenerated  because  other- 
wise the  marriage  cannot  be  considered  holy ;  and  a  believer  may 
not  assume  the  yoke  with  an  unbeliever. —  "Catechismus,"    III. 
Yvon:  "  Le  Mariage  Chretien." 

2  "  Eucleria,"  p.  106,  v.  v. 

3  Yvon:  "Leer  van  den  h.  doop  en  deszelfs  zuivere  bediening,"  etc. 


14  The  Labadist  Colony  in  Maryland.  [284 

The  Lord's  Supper  also  was  limited  to  those  who  were 
beneficiaries  of  the  new  covenant.1  Even  such  as  they  could 
not  partake  of  it  when  conscious  of  sin.  Indeed  they  affirm- 
ed that  it  were  better  that  the  sacrament  should  not  be 
administered  at  all,  than  that  one  unworthy  person  should 
partake  of  it. 

In  addition  to  the  sacraments  and  preaching,  the  new 
covenant  provided  for  the  study  of  the  Scriptures  as  a 
medium  of  communication  between  the  Holy  Spirit  and  the 
Church.  This  was  strongly  insisted  on  by  the  Labadists. 
But  yet,  they  insisted  quite  as  strongly,  that  while  the  read- 
ing of  the  Bible  was  a  medium  of  communication  for  the 
Holy  Spirit,  the  Spirit  was  not  limited  to  any  medium,  and 
even  though  the  Bible  was  not  read,  the  believer  could  not 
fail  to  be  instructed  immediately  by  the  Spirit  in  all  Christian 
doctrine.  The  effect  of  this  teaching  was  to  cause  the  place 
and  importance  of  the  Bible  to  be  underestimated.2  Yet  the 
preaching  of  the  Word  was  obligatory  on  the  part  of  the 
teachers,  and  the  speaking  brothers  and  sisters  were  also 
commissioned  to  interpret  and  to  apply  it  to  their  hearers. 

Labadism  was  essentially  a  mystical  form  of  faith, 
teaching  supreme  reliance  upon  the  inward  illumination  of 
the  Spirit.  And  yet  the  works  of  the  Labadists  disclose  a 
high  form  of  Christian  faith  and  aspiration.  Whatever  its 
defects,  and  the  opportunities  for  hypocritical  pretence 
which  it  offered,  Labadism  was  yet  a  standard  of  faith  and 
conduct  which  no  one  could  conform  to  without  at  the  same 
time  exemplifying-  high  Christian  graces.  True,  Jean  de 
Labadie,  the  founder  of  the  faith,  was  a  profound  mystic, 
seeing  visions  and  hearing  voices,  receiving  revelations  as 
to  his  course  and  conduct,  and  thereby  discrediting  himself 
with  many  intelligent  admirers  of  his  fearless  eloquence 
and  reforming  zeal. 

1  Yvon:  "  Het  heylige  voor  de  heyligen." 
J"Declar.  fidei,"  p.  228. 


CHAPTER  II. 
GOVERNMENT  OF  THE  LABADISTS. 

In  its  government,  the  Church  of  the  Labadists  was  a 
strongly  centralized  church,  all  mission  communities  being 
directed  from  the  Mother  Church  at  Weiward.1  Pierre 
Yvon,  the  successor  of  de  Labadie,  was  regarded  as  the 
Supreme  Father  of  the  whole  Church.  With  him  were 
associated  a  number  of  governors  or  superintendents,  who 
met  in  an  assembly  for  the  transaction  of  business  of  im- 
portance. The  superintendents  comprised  the  speaking  bro- 
thers or  ministers  and  the  more  eminent  of  the  women. 
These  constituted  a  class  of  preachers,  teachers  and  Bible 
readers,  who  had  charge  also  of  the  instruction  of  the 
youth.  Sometimes  there  was  held  a  general  assembly,  includ- 
ing all  the  members  of  the  community  above  the  rank  of 
novice.  The  superintendents  constituted  an  advisory  council 
to  the  supreme  head  of  the  Church.  It  was  this  superior 
council  which  received  the  reports  from  the  heads  of  the 
various  daughter  churches,  and  it  was  this  council  that 
passed  upon  all  recommendations  for  elevation  to  the  rank 
of  full  brother  or  sister  of  those  who  had  been  received  into 
any  of  the  communities  as  novices.  Thus  the  community  in 
Maryland  was  kept  under  the  direct  controlling  influence  of 
the  Mother  Church. 

At  the  head  of  the  Maryland  community  was  Bishop, 
or  Superintendent  Sluyter.  Unquestioning  obedience  to 
those  placed  over  them  was  rigidly  exacted  of  every  member 
of  the  community.  Dittleback  (who  had  himself  been  a 
Labadist,  and  had  severed  his  connection  with  the  Church) 

*Du  Lignon:    "Catechismus,"  III,  chap.  9-13. 

15 


16  The  Labadist  Colony  in  Maryland.  [826 

assures  us,  in  his  "Verval  en  Val  Labadisten,"  that  Sluyter 
arrogated  to  himself  and  his  wife  absolute  authority  in  the 
Maryland  community,  without  regard  to  the  provision  in 
the  Labadist  system  for  an  assembly  of  the  brothers  and 
sisters  of  the  higher  order. 

Each  member  of  the  community  had  his  or  her  assign- 
ment of  work  and  duties.  Order  and  system  of  the  most 
admirable  character  prevailed  in  all  departments  of  the  com- 
munity.1 Some  were  in  charge  of  the  laundry,  others  of  the 
cooking ;  others  again  were  nurses  and  physicians.  To  such 
minute  detail  did  the  system  extend  that  Dittleback  assures 
us  that  a  register  was  kept  of  the  number  of  pieces  of  bread 
and  butter  consumed  at  a  meal.  The  different  families  had 
dwellings  according  to  their  needs,  though,  by  partitioning 
off  the  larger  compartments,  strict  economy  cf  space  was 
observed.  All  rooms  were  at  all  times  open  to  the  pastors 
and  to  those  who  held  oversight  in  their  name.  Those  who 
joined  the  community  resigned  into  the  common  stock  all 
their  possessions.  Individuality  in  attire  was  suppressed. 
"The  haughtiness  of  the  worldly  spirit  must  be  subdued" 
was  a  tenet  far-reaching  and  well  understood  by  each  mem- 
ber of  the  community.2  Degrading  tasks  were  assigned  those 
suspected  of  pride.  Samuel  Bownas,  a  minister  of  the  Society 
of  Friends,  in  the  record  of  his  visit  to  the  community 
gives  a  more  particular  account  of  their  table  discipline  than 
can  be  found  elsewhere.  He  says :  "After  we  had  dined  we 
took  our  leave,  and  a  friend,  my  guide,  went  with  me  and 
brought  me  to  a  people  called  Labadists,  where  we  were 
civilly  entertained  in  their  way.  When  supper  came  in,  it 
was  placed  upon  a  large  table  in  a  large  room,  where,  when 
all  things  were  ready,  came  in  at  a  call,  twenty  men  or  up- 
wards, but  no  women.  We  all  sat  down,  they  placing  me  and 
my  companion  near  the  head  of  the  table,  and  having  passed 

1H.  Van  Berkum:    Labadie  en  de  Labadisten,  part  II,  p.  113. 
2  "Catechismus,"  III,  chap.  9. 


287J  Government  of  the  Labadists.  17 

a  short  space,  one  pulled  off  his  hat,  but  not  so  the  rest  till 
a  short  space  after,  and  then  they,  one  after  another,  pulled 
all  their  hats  off,  and  in  that  uncovered  posture  sat  silent 
uttering  no  word  that  we  could  hear  for  nearly  half  a  quar- 
ter of  an  hour,  and  as  they  did  not  uncover  at  once,  neither 
did  they  cover  themselves  again  at  once,  but  as  they  put  on 
their  hats  fell  to  eating  not  regarding  those  who  were  still 
uncovered,  so  that  it  might  be  ten  minutes  time  or  more 
between  the  first  and  last  putting  on  of  their  hats.  I  after- 
wards queried  with  my  companion  as  to  their  conduct,  and 
he  gave  for  an  answer  that  they  held  it  unlawful  to  pray 
till  they  felt  some  inward  motion  for  the  same,  and  that 
secret  prayer  was  more  acceptable  than  to  utter  words,  and 
that  it  was  most  proper  for  every  one  to  pray  as  moved 
thereto  by  the  spirit  in  their  own  minds.  I  likewise  queried 
if  they  had  no  women  amongst  them.  He  told  me  they  had, 
but  the  women  ate  by  themselves  and  the  men  by  themselves, 
having  all  things  in  common  respecting  their  household 
affairs,  so  that  none  could  claim  any  more  right  than  another 
to  any  part  of  their  stock,  whether  in  trade  or  husbandry; 
and  if  any  one  had  a  mind  to  join  with  them,  whether  rich  or 
poor,  they  must  put  what  they  had  in  the  common  stock,  and 
afterwards  if  they  had  a  mind  to  leave  the  society  they  must 
likewise  leave  what  they  brought  and  go  out  empty-handed. 
They  frequently  expounded  the  Scriptures  among  them- 
selves, and  being  a  very  large  family,  in  all  upwards  of  a 
hundred  men,  women  and  children,  carried  on  something  of 
the  manufacture  of  linen  and  had  a  large  plantation  of  corn, 
flax  and  hemp,  together  with  cattle  of  several  kinds."  The 
custom  of  beginning  the  meal  by  chanting  a  psalm,  which 
was  the  practice  at  Weiward,  seems  to  have  fallen  into  dis- 
use in  the  Maryland  community.  In  other  respects,  how- 
ever, the  observations  of  Samuel  Bownas  agree  very  accur-- 
ately  with  what  we  know  to  have  been  the  custom  of  the 
Mother  Church. 

The  following  extract  from  the  "Verval  en  Val  Laba- 


18  The  Labadist  Colony  in  Maryland.  [288 

disten,"  by  Peter  Dittleback,  affords  an  instructive  side- 
light upon  the  life  of  the  Maryland  Labadists,  particularly 
as  to  their  views  of  marriage.  The  writer  says :  "A  friend 
of  mine  arriving  from  Sluyter's  community  has  made  revela- 
tions to  me  with  regard  to  their  doctrine  of  marriage. 

*  *     *     He  went  there  with  a  full  surrender  of  himself, 
family,  goods  and  effects.     His  penitence,  Sluyter  wrote, 
was  unusual.    The  letter  was  read  to  us  at  Weiward  and  we 
rejoiced  exceedingly  over  his  conversion ;  but  now  since  he 
has  left  them,  they  charge  and  blacken  him  with  sin.     He 
was  compelled  not  only  to  submit  to  the  mortifications  im- 
posed by  Sluyter,  but  also  to  those  of  Sluyter's  wife,  who  had 
shortly  previous  arrived  from  Weiward  and  took  a  little 
hand  in  mortifying.    What  they  thought  of  at  night  had  to 
be  done  somehow  during  the  day.     Indeed  they  made  it  so 
sharp  that  a  brother  who  had  been  sent  over  from  Weiward 
would  remain  with  them  no  longer,  but  returned  to  Wei- 
ward, where  also  he  was  humiliated.     This  abasing  cannot 
continue  a  long  time  among  these  people.    My  friend's  wife 
had  five  small  children  whom  she  brought  with  her  to  this 
new  cloister  discipline.     When  she  kissed  them  she  was 
rebuked  for  showing    so    naturally  her  fleshly  cleavings. 

*  *     *     I  could  tolerate  Weiward  in  some  degree,  that 
there  should  be  no  fire  in  the  cells,  although  it  is  cold  there 
in  the  winter,  because  turf  is  dear,  and  so  many  families  could 
not  be  supplied  unless  at  great  expense,  but  this  friend  told 
me  that  Sluyter  would  not  allow  them  to  have  any  fire  in 
order  to  harden  them  and  to  mortify  and  subdue  the  sins  of 
the  body,  while  there  was  so  much  wood  there  that  they 
were  obliged  to  burn  it  in  the  fields  to  get  it  out  of  the  way ; 
but  Sluyter  had  his  own  hearth  well  provided  night  and  day. 
My  friend  had  never  suffered  more  cold  and  hardship  than 
among  these  people,  and  he  frequently  made  a  fire  in  the 
woods  in  order  to  warm  himself.    His  wife  had  no  mind  to 
remain  in  this  cloister  under  such  an  abbess,  who  censured 
her  at  the  time  she  had  a  child  nursing  at  her  breast,  because 
she  drank  too  much  at  the  table,  and  when  afterwards  she 


289]  Government  of  the  Labadists.  19 

drank  less,  because  she  left  off  too  soon.  As  they  saw  these 
things  did  not  please  his  wife  they  began  to  talk  to  him 
more  plainly  and  freely  concerning  marriage,  arguing  that 
hell  was  full  of  ordinary  marriages,  saying,  among  other 
things,  these  abominable  words:  'It  was  for  God  alone  to 
judge  whether  he  cohabitated  with  a  harlot  or  with  his 
wife.'  The  wife  fearful  lest  they  should  take  her  husband 
away  from  her,  of  which  there  had  been  at  that  place  more 
than  one  instance,  sought  very  affectionately  to  speak  to  her 
husband  privately,  and  to  exhort  him  to  steadfastness,  as 
she  had  come  away  with  him  from  Amsterdam  and  was 
there  in  a  strange  land  with  her  little  children.  They  had 
succeeded,  however,  with  him  so  far  that  he  began  to  keep 
himself  away  from  her.  His  wife  being  very  angry  about 
it,  trie  abbess  jeeringly  asked  her  if  she  could  not  be  one 
night  without  her  husband?  The  husband  finally  began  to 
attack  their  doctrine  about  marriage  out  of  the  Scriptures, 
showing  that  the  apostles  had  not  taught  so.  He  asked 
Sluyter  what  marriage  he  came  of?  Whether  his  parents 
were  not  married  in  the  ordinary  way?  They  began  to 
wonder  at  this  man's  opposing  them  out  of  the  Scriptures, 
until  finally  he  told  them  soundly  that  all  connection  between 
him  and  them  was  at  an  end.  They  were  confounded,  and 
went  at  him  in  another  way,  saying  we  have  several  times 
spoken  about  marriage,  which  is  a  delicate  subject,  but 
we  must  also  say  to  you  that  when  there  are  any  who  cannot 
conduct  themselves  that  way  in  the  marriage  relation,  we 
will  tolerate  them.  But  how  tolerate,  as  a  brother?  No; 
but  only  as  regards  community  of  goods  and  living  together. 
This  was  a  new  trick  to  get  him  in;  but  they  had  already 
blabbed  too  much.  They  did  not  look  favorably  upon  his 
going-  back  to  Holland,  and  attempted  to  frighten  him  from 
it,  asking  him  if  he  were  not  afraid  to  trust  himself  on  the 
sea,  and  fall  from  one  pit  into  another?  But  he  persevered, 
and  the  Lord  helped  him  and  his,  in  an  especial  manner,  to 
reach  the  Father-land  in  safety."1 

1  "Verval  en  Val  Labadisten,"  Letter  III. 


CHAPTER  III. 
LABADIE  AND  THE  LABADISTS. 

"Few  theologians,"  says  Dr.  J.  D.  T.  Schotel,  in  his 
"Anna  Maria  van  Schurman,"  "have  ever  lived,  concerning 
whom  their  contemporaries  have  spoken  and  written  with 
deeper  contempt  and  more  unstinted  praise  than  Jean  dc 
Labadie."  But  with  all  the  diversities  of  opinion  concerning 
him,  there  was  a  general  concensus  of  opinion  as  to  his  wide 
and  varied  learning  and  his  matchless  pulpit  eloquence,  while 
his  sermons  and  treatises  remain  to-day  as  evidences  of  his 
theological  grasp. 

He  was  born  at  Bordeaux,  in  France,  February  10, 
I6IO.1  His  parents  entered  him  at  the  Jesuit  College,  where 
later  he  became  a  member  of  the  lower  order  of  the  priest- 
hood. His  mystical  views  and  eccentricities  finally  made 
him  objectionable  to  the  Jesuits.  For  this  reason,  as  many 
writers  believe,  though  ostensibly  on  the  ground  of  ill-health, 
he  secured  his  release  from  the  order  and  became  a  secular 
priest.  His  genius  and  talents  had  led  the  Jesuits  to  tolerate 
him  until  his  attacks  upon  salient  features  of  the  Catholic 
Church,2  added  to  his  fanaticism,  made  him  altogether  unde- 
sirable. He  considered  himself  immediately  inspired  in  his 

1  Chaufepie,  "Nouveau  Dictionnaire  Historique  et  Critique."     Some 
of  the  Dutch  writers  give  his  birth  as   February    13.     Dittleback 
declares  that  he  was  an  illegitimate  son  of  Henry  IV,  whom  he 
greatly   resembled.     The   more  general   and  credible  view   is   that 
his  father  was  a  French  noble,   Chaufepie.     Niceron,   Basnage,   in 
his  "Annals  des  Provinces  Unies,"  p.  52,  Spener,  et  al.,  hold  that 
the    father   of    Labadie    was    a  soldier  of  fortune,  who  rose  to  be 
Governor  of  Bourg. 

2  J.  de  Labadie :   "Grace  and  the  Efficacious  Vocation."    Mollerus : 
"Cimbria  Litters." 

20 


291]  Labadie  and  the  Labadists.  21 

utterances.1  He  attracted  the  attention  of  P.  Gondran,  sec- 
ond general  of  the  oratory  of  Paris,  and  received  a  call  to 
that  city,  the  whole  body  of  the  Sarbonne  uniting  in  the 
call.2  The  fame  he  acquired  there,  extended  beyond  the 
borders  of  his  own  country. 

Jesuitical  jealousy  persecuted  him  with  stories  of  gross 
immorality3  and  caused  him  to  leave  Paris  for  Amiens.* 
Here  he  had  the  good  fortune  to  come  under  the  notice  of 
the  courtiers  of  Louis  XIII,  who  recommended  him  to  the 
good  offices  of  their  sovereign  and  Cardinal  Richelieu.  Until 
the  death  of  the  latter  he  was  safe  from  attack.5  At  Paris 
he  had  united  with  the  Jansenists  and  had  been  unsparing  in 
his  crusade  against  the  Jesuits ;  but  not  alone  against  them, 
for  in  a  preaching  tour  throughout  Picardy,  he  had  severely 
arraigned  the  Catholic  Church  at  large. 

His  declared  intention  was  to  reform  the  Church,  and 
he  conducted  his  services  after  what  he  considered  the  apos- 
tolic model. 

On  the  death  of  Richelieu  and  the  succession  of  Car- 
dinal Mazarin,  the  Jesuits  obtained  an  order  of  the  Court 
for  the  arrest  of  Labadie,  who  was  saved  its  execution  by 
the  death  of  the  King.  In  1645  ne  was  cited  to  appear  at 
Court  along  with  his  friend  the  Bishop  of  Amiens.  He  was 
sentenced  to  perpetual  imprisonment,  which  sentence  was 
modified  on  appeal  from  the  Assembly  of  the  Clergy  of 
France,  then  in  session.  He  was  ordered  to  renounce  his 
opinions  and  to  refrain  from  preaching  for  a  period  of 


1  "Declaration  de  la  Foi,"  p.  84;  "Historisch  Verhael  nopens  Laba- 
disten  Scheuringh,"  p.  109. 

2  "Declaration  de  Jean  de  Labadie,"  p.  122. 

Dutch  historians  discredit  these  stories;  many  French  writers 
affect  to  believe  them. 

4  Chaufepie  says :  "One  is  not  able  to  understand  the  motives  that 
prompted  Labadie  to  leave  Paris,"  but  Labadie  seems  to  make  it 
clear  in  his  "Declaration,"  p.  122-123, 

5Mollerus,  p.  36:    "Declaration,"  124,  et  seq. 


22  The  Labadist  Colony  in  Maryland.  [292 

years.1  During  a  second  forced  retirement,2  he  obtained  and 
read  a  copy  of  "Calvin's  Institutes,"  which  had  a  determin- 
ing influence  on  his  after-career.  The  result  of  his  solitary 
reflections  is  summarized  in  these  words:  "This  is  the  last 
time  that  Rome  shall  persecute  me  in  her  Communion.  Up 
to  the  present  I  have  endeavored  to  help  and  to  heal  her, 
remaining  within  her  jurisdiction;  but  now  it  is  full  time 
for  me  to  denounce  her  and  to  testify  against  her."3 

In  1650  he  proceeded  to  the  Chateau  of  the  Count  of 
Tavas  where  he  adjured  his  former  faith,  adopted  that  of 
the  Calvinistic  system,  and  was  later  ordained  a  Protestant 
minister.  The  reception  of  the  famous  priest  was  heralded 
as  the  greatest  Protestant  triumph  since  the  days  of  Calvin.* 

Montauban,  Orange,  and  Geneva  were  the  scenes  of 
his  labors.  He  declined  to  consider  many  splendid  overtures 
for  a  renewal  of  his  Catholic  allegiance.5  At  the  Protestant 
center  of  Geneva,  his  services  were  attended  by  persons  from 
all  parts  of  France,  Holland,  Switzerland,  The  Netherlands 
and  England.  Among  his  converts  were  Pierre  Yvon  and 
Du  Lignon,  both  prominent  in  the  later  history  of  Labadism ; 
also  Abraham  van  Schurman  and  his  sister  Anna  Maria, 
who  was  considered  the  foremost  literary  woman  of  her 
day.6 

De  Labadie  found  the  Protestant  Church  also  in  need  of 
a  reformer,  and  addressed  himself  zealously  to  the  work. 
Voetius,  Essenius  and  Lodenstein,  prominent  theologians  of 
Utrecht,  whither  Labadie  had  been  called  through  the  influ- 

*De  Labadie:    "Traite  de  la  Solitude  Clare" tienne." 
*'rCimbria  Littera,"  p.  37. 

3  Schotel :    "Anna  Maria  van  Schurman,"  p.  160. 

4  Among  the  treatises  he  published  at  this  time  were  the  "Declara- 
tion de  la  Foi"  and  the  "Practique  des  Oraisons  mentale  et  vocale." 

5"Nouveau  Dictionnaire,"  etc.,  Article,  Labadie. 

6  Those  unfamiliar  with  the  famous  "Mithradates  of  the  Seven- 
teenth Century"  are  referred  to  the  following  sources:  "Nouveau 
Dictionnaire  Historique  et  Critique,"  Article,  Schurman.  Schotel : 
"Anna  Maria  van  Schurman."  Tschackert:  "Anna  Maria  von 
Schurman." 


293]  Labadie  and  the  Labadists.  23 

ence  of  Anna  Maria  van  Schurman,1  were  not  altogether 
favorably  impressed  with  him.  To  them  he  was  not  only 
the  brilliant  divine,  but  also  an  irresponsible  visionary,  not 
only  the  eminent  theologian,  but  an  arrogant  egotist.  Hence 
his  stay  at  Utrecht  was  short.  At  Middleburg,  Zealand,  his 
previous  successes  were  repeated.  Among  his  converts  was 
the  Ch.  de  Rochefort.2  Such  an  aggressive  personality  dom- 
inated by  a  sincere  conviction  of  a  call  to  attempt  a  great 
work  of  reform  in  the  Church  could  not  but  eventually 
antagonize  the  established  ecclesiastical  order.  Such  was 
the  case.  He  became  embroiled  with  the  ecclesiastical  and 
civil  authorities  and  was  formally  deposed  from  the  minis- 
try.3 In  this  position  he  felt  the  alternative  thrust  upon  him 
of  founding  an  independent  church,  which  should  illustrate 
the  pure  principles  and  practices  of  the  Christian  faith,  as 
he  conceived  them.  Being  driven  out  of  Middleburg,  he 
established  at  Veere,  a  church  which  he  styled  the  Evangel- 
ical.4 The  States  of  Zealand  again  ordered  him  to  move  on, 
After  a  demonstration  on  the  part  of  the  burghers  which 
nearly  precipitated  an  armed  conflict,  Labadie  removed  to 
Amsterdam,  where  he  had  an  interval  of  peace,  and  an  op- 
portunity to  establish  a  communal  society,  theories  of  which 
had  always  been  cherished  by  Labadie.6 

The  Church  at  Amsterdam  grew  and  prospered.  Over- 
tures of  union  were  received  from  various  sectaries,  nota- 
bly the  Society  of  Friends,  all  of  which  Labadie  declined 
to  consider.6  Labadism  as  an  independent  ecclesiastical  sys- 

1  Schotel :    "Anna  Maria  van  Schurman,"  p.  167. 

2  The  eminent  cartographer. 

3  Ypey  en  Dermout :  "Geschiedenis  der  Nederlandsche  Hervormde 
Kerk,"  vol.  Ill,  p.  88,  note  128;  vol.  II,  note  751.    "Historic  curieuse 
de  la  vie,  Sr.  Jean  Labadie,"  p.  22,  etseq.      "Nouveau  Dictionnaire," 
Article,  Labadie.   "Historisch  Verhaelnopensder  Labadisten  Scheur- 
ingh,"  2d  edition,  1770,  pp.  14,  15. 

4  De  Labadie:    "Declaration  Chretienne,"  etc.     "Historisch  Ver- 
hael,"  etc.,  p.  15. 

5 A.  M.  a  Schurman:      "Eucleria  Seu  Melioris    Partis  Electio," 
p.  147. 
6  "Nouveau  Dictionnaire,"  Article,  Labadie. 


24  The  Labadist  Colony  in  Maryland.  [294 

tern  became  the  subject  of  a  great  deal  of  polemical  writing 
on  the  part  of  its  founder,  his  friends  and  his  adversaries. 

After  a  long  period  of  uninterrupted  and  peaceful  devel- 
opment, some  disorders  occurring  at  their  services  fur- 
nished a  reason  for  the  civil  authorities  to  place  such  restric- 
tions upon  the  society  as  practically  to  cripple  the  Church. 
In  this  emergency,  the  Princess  Elizabeth,  daughter  of 
Frederick  the  Elector  Palatine  and  King  of  Bohemia,  who 
was  a  friend  of  Anna  Maria  van  Schurman,  became  their 
patroness.  She  tendered  them  the  Abbey  of  Herford,  in 
Westphalia,  of  which  she  was  abbess.1  But  here  also  they 
were  denied  a  permanent  asylum.  Their  immediate  offense 
was  certain  excesses  which  were  indulged  in  by  some  of 
their  number,  and  which  resulted  in  the  withdrawal  of  many 
of  the  more  sober  and  intelligent  members  of  the  commu- 
nity.2 

The  Princess  being  ordered  by  the  Imperial  Diet  to 
cause  the  removal  of  the  Labadists  from  Herford,  the  whole 
company  sorrowfully  embarked  for  Altona,  Denmark,  in 
1672.  Here  Labadie  died  two  years  later.  His  death 
evoked  estimates  of  his  work  and  worth  from  high  ecclesias- 
tical sources  and  it  is  significant  to  note  that  the  general 
expression  was  in  a  high  degree  laudatory. 

His  evident  fanaticism  and  strong  personal  ambition 
were  recognized  and  deplored,  but  his  bold  and  fearless 
attacks  upon  immorality  and  upon  lassitude  in  the  Church, 
had  an  awakening  influence  upon  the  ecclesiastical  organ- 
ization, which  long  survived  him.  Indeed,  the  Dutch  his- 
torians are  disposed  to  regard  Labadie's  chief  work  the 
leavening  of  the  old  lump,  by  the  many  hundreds  of  his 
converts  who  remained  in  connection  with  the  Reformed 
Church,  and  the  Labadists  after  Labadie  who  were  re- 

^'Eucleria,"  pp.  182-184. 

*  On  one  occasion  of  the  celebration  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  a  spir- 
itual dance  was  indulged  in  by  men  and  women  promiscuously,  with 
the  accompanying  excesses  of  indiscriminate  kissing  and  embracing. 
"  Historisch  Verhael  nopens  der  Labadisten  Scheuringh,"  p.  73, 
et  seq. 


295]  Labadie  and  the  Labadists.  25 

ceived  back  into  the  Reformed  Communion  upon  the  disin- 
tegration of  their  own  society.  Pierre  Yvon  succeeded  to 
the  position  of  Father  of  the  community.  The  problem  of 
properly  provisioning  a  large  community  led  the  Labadists 
to  remove  to  Weiward,  in  Friesland,  where  they  became 
established  in  an  estate  called  Thetinga  or  Waltha  House, 
which  was  tendered  to  them  by  the  three  daughters  of 
Francis  Aarsen,  Lord  of  Sommeldyk.  There  in  the  depths 
of  a  thick  grove  of  stately  trees  they  lived  in  rigid  accord- 
ance with  the  practices  which  had  been  left  them  by  their 
late  lamented  leader  for  the  regulation  of  their  religious 
lives.  From  the  simple  people  of  the  neighboring  hamlet 
they  received  the  name  of  Bosch-lieden,  "people  of  the 
woods."1 

If  communal  Labadism  was  born  at  Amsterdam,  it  was 
at  Weiward  that  it  attained  its  full  measure  of  strength, 
declined  and  died.  For  more  than  half  a  century  this  place 
was  the  seat  of  the  new  Church,  and  from  it  jurisdiction 
was  exercised  over  the  few  feeble  communities  planted  at 
other  places.  From  Weiward  also  proceeded  the  colonists 
who  settled  in  Maryland,  and  from  Weiward  proceeded  the 
voice  of  authority  that  controlled  these  colonists. 

At  Weiward  the  Labadists  were  still  subjected  to  eccle- 
siastical persecution.  Synod  after  synod  furnished  oppor- 
tunities for  forensic  declamation  against  them  on  the  part 
of  ill-disposed  ministers.2  The  Estates  of  the  Provinces, 
however,  maintained  their  tolerant  attitude  towards  the  oft- 
persecuted  sect. 

The  return  of  the  Labadists  to  The  Netherlands  had 
been  marked  by  large  accessions  to  the  community.  Among 
those  received  at  this  time  was  Peter  Dittleback,  the  trans- 
lator into  Dutch  of  Anna  Maria  van  Schurman's  "Eucleria," 
and  the  author  of  the  work,  entitled  "Verval  en  Val  Laba- 
disten,"  to  which  reference  has  been  made. 

1  "Geschiedenis  der  Nederlandsche  Hervormde  Kerk,"  note  149. 
1  "Acts  of  the  Synod  of  Friesland  for  the  Year  1675,"  Article  44. 


CHAPTER  IV. 
COLONIZATION   IN  AMERICA. 

Two  distinct  sets  of  forces  were  operating  to  link  Mary- 
land with  a  movement  which,  though  modest  in  its  local 
development  and  influence,  is  yet  recognized  by  Dutch  writ- 
ers as  one  of  the  most  significant  developments  in  the  Re- 
formed Church  of  The  Netherlands.  Having  considered 
the  history  of  Labadism  prior  to  its  planting  in  Maryland, 
and  having  studied  the  doctrines  and  practices  which  the 
Maryland  Labadists  held  in  common  with  the  mother  com- 
munity, we  must  now  notice  the  course  of  events  which  gave 
the  name  "Labadie  Tract"  to  the  nomenclature  of  the  State. 

Whatever  may  be  the  theories  concerning  the  source 
and  motives  of  religious  toleration  in  Colonial  Maryland, 
certain  it  is  that  where  religious  toleration  has  been  practiced 
the  result  has  been  the  attraction  or  development  of  sects 
reflecting  the  various  shades  of  religious  opinion.  Whether 
or  not  Maryland's  attitude  in  this  respect  attracted  the  Lab- 
adists to  her  shores,  it  is  a  fact  that  their  experience  of 
repeated  persecutions  in  Europe,  had  led  them  to  turn  their 
eyes  longingly  towards  the  New  World,  in  the  hope  that 
they  might  there  discover  a  haven  of  refuge,  where  they 
might  practice  the  principles  of  their  faith  without  let  or 
hindrance. 

The  particular  circumstances  which  favored  the  settle- 
ment of  the  Labadists  in  Maryland  lead  to  a  consideration 
of  the  manorial  grant  of  Lord  Baltimore  to  one  Augustine 
Herrman  j1  for  it  was  upon  the  lands  thus  granted  that  the 
settlement  of  the  Labadists  was  made. 

1  There  are  various  spellings  of  the  name,  and  on  these  spellings 
hinges  the  controversy  of   Herman's  nativity,  the  Germans  claim- 
ing him  for  themselves  and  asserting  that  Bohemia  was  his  adopted 
country,  while  the  Bohemians  claim  that  he  was  a  native  of  Prague. 
26 


297]  Colonization  in  America.  27 

Augustine  Herrman,  "first  founder  and  seater  of  Bohe- 
mia Manor,"  was  a  Bohemian  adventurer  who  made  his 
way  to  America  in  the  service  of  the  West  India  Company. 
He  is  generally  believed  to  have  been  a  native  of  Prague, 
Bohemia,  and  to  have  been  born  about  the  year  1608.  A 
fair  education,  supplemented  by  the  opportunities  of  an 
adventurous  career  had  made  him  conversant  with  French, 
Dutch,  German  and  English.  He  was  also  an  excellent 
surveyor  and  something  of  an  artist. 

As  a  soldier  he  had  seen  active  service  under  Gustavus 
Adolphus,  and  upon  retiring  engaged  in  various  commercial 
undertakings  in  the  service  of  the  West  India  Company1 
and  thus  made  his  way  to  New  Netherlands.  New  Amster- 
dam, where  he  made  his  home,  felt  the  impress  of  his  strong 
personality  in  many  ways.  He  was  an  original  member  of 
the  council  of  nine  men  instituted  by  Governor  Stuyvesant 
in  1647,  and  his  name  appears  in  various  important  trans- 
actions, while  serving  as  a  member  of  this  council.2 

His  connection  with  Maryland  matters  dates  from  his 
appointment  by  Governor  Stuyvesant  as  a  special  commis- 
sioner, along  with  Resolved  Waldron,  to  negotiate  with 
Governor  Fendall,  of  Maryland,  relative  to  the  disputed 
eastern  boundary  of  Lord  Baltimore's  Province.3  As  an 
instance  of  his  acute  discernment,  he  pointed  out  that  Lord 
Baltimore's  patent  only  invested  him  with  such  lands  as  had 
not  Been  previously  inhabited  by  any  persons  save  the  bar- 
barous people  called  Indians.  This  interpretation  of  the 
terms  of  the  charter  was  not  acceptable  to  the  Maryland 
authorities,  and  the  dispute  was  referred  to  the  respective 
governments  for  adjudgment. 

1  Johnston :  "History  of  Cecil  County,"  p.  15. 
a  "Ancient  Families  of  New  York,"  in  New  York  Genealogical  and 
Biographical  Record,  April,  1878,  p.  54. 
3  "New  York  Colonial  Documents,"  vol.  II. 


28  The  Labadist  Colony  in  Maryland.  [298 

Waldron  returned  to  New  Amsterdam  to  submit  their 
report,  and  Herrman  proceeded  to  Virginia  to  clear  the 
Dutch  of  the  charge  of  inciting  the  Indians  in  the  Accomac 
to  hostilities  against  the  English.  Returning,  he  passed 
through  what  is  now  Cecil  County,  Maryland.  So  favorably 
was  he  impressed  with  the  beauty  and  advantages  of  the 
section,  that  he  commenced  negotiations  with  Lord  Balti- 
more, which  resulted  in  his  receiving  an  extensive  land 
grant  in  consideration  of  his  making  a  map  of  Maryland 
and  Virginia,  which  would  be  valuable  to  Lord  Baltimore  in 
the  settlement  of  the  boundary  dispute  pending  between  the 
two  colonies.1  Thus  Herrman  was  invested  with  about 
twenty-four  thousand  acres  of  the  most  desirable  lands  of 
what  is  now  Cecil  County,  Maryland,  and  New  Castle 
County,  Delaware,  which  he  erected  into  several  manors, 
called  by  him,  "Bohemia  Manor,"  "St.  Augustine  Manor," 
"Little  Bohemia,"  and  "The  Three  Bohemian  Sisters." 

Among  the  titles  of  Acts  passed  by  the  Maryland  As- 
sembly, is  one  dated  1666,  which  provides  for  the  naturaliza- 
tion of  several  persons  therein  named,  and  including  "Au- 
gustine Herrman  of  Prague,  in  the  Kingdom  of  Bohemia, 
Ephraim,  Georgius  and  Casparus,  sons  of  said  Augustine, 
Anna  Margaritta,  Judith  and  Francina,  his  daughters."2 

It  was  the  design  of  Lord  Baltimore  to  erect  a  county 
that  should  bear  his  name,  so  that  one  of  the  specifications 
of  Herrman's  grant  was  that  he  should  erect  a  County  of 
Cecil  with  the  town  of  Cecilton.  Herrman's  lands  were 
at  that  time  included  in  Baltimore  County,  which  embraced 
all  the  head  tributaries  of  the  Chesapeake.  The  year  of  his 
settlement  in  Maryland,  the  year  1661,  he  mentions  that  he 
was  engaging  settlers  to  unite  to  form  a  village.  It  is  not 
probable  that  he  succeeded  in  his  purpose.  The  County  of 

1 A  reprint  of  this  map  is  in  the  possession  of  the  Maryland  His- 
torical Society. 

2  Bacon,  sub  Anno  1666.  This  was  the  first  naturalization  act 
passed  by  any  of  the  Colonies. 


299]  Colonisation  in  America.  29 

Cecil  was  subsequently  erected,  and  until  that  time  Herr- 
man  was  a  Justice  of  the  Peace  of  Baltimore  County. 

The  alliance  of  his  eldest  son,  Ephriam,  with  the  Laba- 
dists,  who  made  their  appearance  in  America  in  1679,  leads 
us  to  consider  the  circumstances  and  motives  which  led  the 
Labadists  to  Maryland  and  effected  their  settlement  on 
"Bohemia  Manor."  The  circumstances  were  industrial  and 
economic,  the  motives  were  religious.  Along  with  a  desire 
to  find  in  the  New  World  an  asylum  where  they  might 
peacefully  pursue  their  communal  life,  they  were  actuated 
by  a  praiseworthy  zeal  for  the  conversion  of  the  Indians. 
But,  perhaps,  the  scheme  of  colonization  found  its  greatest 
strength  in  the  industrial  needs  of  the  community  at 
Weiward.  The  problem  of  sustenance  for  a  community  of 
above  one  hundred  persons  was  one  not  easy  of  solution; 
and,  indeed,  at  the  time  of  its  highest  development  this 
problem  was  magnified  four-fold. 

At  the  time  of  their  greatest  prosperity  they  received 
a  visit  in  1667  from  William  Penn  and  his  associates,  Fox, 
Barclay  and  Keith,1  who  renewed  the  overtures  of  union 
which  William  Penn  had  made  to  Labadie  in  Amster- 
dam. But  the  Friends  left  without  accomplishing  their  pur- 
pose, though  with  pleasant  impressions  of  the  people  so  like 
themselves  in  the  mystical  elements  of  their  faith. 

The  community  the  Quakers  visited  at  Weiward  was  an 
eminently  industrious  one.  Each  member  had  an  assign- 
ment of  work,  the  returns  for  which  went  into  the  general 
coffer.2  Of  this  industry,  Anna  Maria  van  Schurman  says : 
"It  is  nearly  incredible  with  what  splendid  order,  with  what 
comfort  and  ease  even  the  heaviest  and  most  difficult  work 
is  performed  by  us,  where  the  Christly  love,  which  maketh 
not  ashamed,  goes  before  and  directs  everything.  By  the 
singular  blessing  of  God,  it  sometimes  happens  that  we  do 

1  "Penn's  Travels,"  4th  ed.,  p.  98,  "De  Labadie  en  de  Labadisten." 
Gough:    "History  of  the  People  called  Quakers,"  p.  9,  492;  part  II, 
p.  12. 

2  "De  Labadie  en  de  Labadisten,"  pp.  118-119,  part  II. 


30  The  Labadist  Colony  in  Maryland.  [300 

more  work  in  a  single  day  than  other  workers  of  the  same 
kind  in  three  or  four  days/'1 

The  lands  at  Weiward  were  chiefly  valuable  for  graz- 
ing, but  Dittleback  ascribes  their  failure  for  agricultural 
purposes  to  indifferent  cultivation.  Besides  sheep-raising 
and  agriculture,  various  other  pursuits  were  engaged  in. 
There  were  complete  facilities  for  printing  and  publish- 
ing books  and  tracts,  the  sale  and  circulation  of  which 
devolved  on  some  members  of  the  community.  Soap  manu- 
facture was  followed  with  indifferent  success;  the  sale  of 
Labadie  pills  brought  considerable  profit  to  the  commu- 
nity, while  the  Labadist  wool  was  a  celebrated  brand  of  the 
times.  There  were  also  in  the  community  tailors,  shoe- 
makers, bricklayers,  carpenters,  etc.  But  the  revenues  from 
all  sources  were  insufficient  to  provide  more  than  the  scan- 
tiest subsistence  for  the  whole  company  of  men,  women  and 
children.2 

The  policy  pursued  was  to  relieve  the  mother  com- 
munity by  successive  subdivisions  and  the  establishment  of 
communities  at  other  places.  The  Labadists  had  discovered 
that  the  plan  of  concentrating  a  very  large  force  at  any  one 
point  was  impracticable  in  communal  relations,  unless 
forms  of  remunerative  employment  sufficient  to  meet  their 
needs  could  be  originated.  So,  as  the  community  increased 
in  number,  daughter  churches  were  established  at  Rotter- 
dam, The  Hague,  and  elsewhere.  They  considered  this  form 
of  Church  organization  to  be  primitive  and  apostolic,  and  as 
in  all  things  they  endeavored  to  foster  the  ideal  of  their 
illustrious  founder — the  reproduction  of  the  living  image 
of  the  early  Church — they  endeavored  to  model  their  Church 
organization  and  adapt  its  administration  to  the  sacred  pat- 
tern, just  as  in  practice  they  sought  to  reproduce  the  customs 
of  the  early  Church. 

The  attention  of  the  Labadists  had  been  first  directed 

1  "Eucleria,"  p.  145,  et  seq. 

'"Korte  onderrichtinge,  rakende  den  staet  en  maniere  van  het  der 
Labadisten." 


301]  Colonisation  in  America.  31 

to  the  New  World  by  the  three  sisters  of  the  Lord  of  Som- 
melsdyk,1  who  was  also  the  Governor  of  Surinam,  which 
had  passed  into  possession  of  the  Dutch  by  the  treaty  of 
Breda,  in  1667,  in  compensation  for  New  York,  which  was 
ceded  to  the  English.  This  seemed  to  be  the  most  desirable 
place  in  the  New  World  for  the  establishment  of  their 
colony,  as  it  was  the  only  possession  remaining  to  the  Dutch 
in  America,  and  their  colony  would  be  under  the  patronage 
and  protection2  of  the  friendly  Governor.  A  deputation  that 
was  to  report  on  its  availability  found  that  the  Governor's 
representations  were  colored  by  his  desire  to  have  such  pious 
and  industrious  people  as  his  colonists,  and  in  reality  the 
Eden  which  they  expected  to  find  approximated  more  closely 
to  a  hospital. 

The  Labadists  next  considered  New  York  for  their 
purposes.  The  objections  to  this  place  were  that  it  had  now 
become  an  English  possession,  and  its  Governor,  Andros, 
was  a  Roman  Catholic,  and  they  were  afraid  that  under 
him  they  would  not  enjoy  the  measure  of  religious  liberty 
they  craved.3  Another  objection  to  New  York  was  that 
tobacco,  which  was  a  staple  product,  was  interdicted  by  the 
rules  of  their  society.  Especially  solicitous  were  they  as 
to  the  probable  measure  of  success  with  which  they  might 
preach  the  evangelical  faith  to  the  natives. 

It  was  determined  by  the  Weiward  assembly  to  send 
two  of  their  number  to  New  York  at  once  to  secure  land  for 
a  colony.  Peter  Sluyter  and  Jasper  Danckers,  both  promi- 
nent men  of  the  community,  were  selected  for  the  task.  The 
journal,  which  was  kept  by  these  two  men,  constitutes  an 
important  source  of  information  concerning  the  Labadists 
in  America.4  For  some  prudential  reasons  they  traveled 
under  the  aliases  P.  Vorstman  and  J.  Schilders.  Their 
departure  for  America  is  thus  noted:  "On  the  eighth  of 

JKok:  "  Vaderlandsch  Woordenboek,"  subject  Aarrsens. 

2  "De  Labadie  en  de  Labadisten,"  part  II,  p.  132. 

3  "De  Labadie  en  de  Labadisten,"  part  I. 

*  "Memoirs  of  the  Long  Island  Historical  Society,"  vol.  I. 


32  The  Labadist  Colony  in  Maryland.  [802 

June,  1679,  we  left  home  at  four  o'clock  in  the  morning, 
taking  leave  of  those  with  whom  God  had  joined  us  fast  in 
spirit,  they  committing  us  and  we  them  with  tenderness  of 
heart,  unto  the  gracious  protection  of  the  Highest."  They 
arrived  at  New  York  on  Saturday,  the  twenty-third  of  Sep- 
tember. The  next  day  they  attended  church  "in  order  to 
avoid  scandal,  as  well  as  for  other  reasons."  On  the  follow- 
ing Thursday  they  received  a  call  from  one  Arnold  de  la 
Grange,  to  whom  they  appeared  to  have  brought  letters. 
They  thanked  him  for  an  invitation  to  accompany  him  to 
the  South  River,  and  replied  that  they  would  await  the 
Lord's  will  as  to  their  future  course.  Their  journal  is 
instructive  as  showing  the  manner  of  life  of  the  American 
Colonists,  unless  the  experiences  they  relate  were  excep- 
tional. A  night  spent  on  the  estates  of  a  fellow-countryman 
from  Utrecht  is  thus  described:  "After  supper  we  went 
to  sleep  in  the  barn  upon  some  straw  spread  with  sheep- 
skins, in  the  midst  of  the  continual  grunting  of  hogs,  squeal- 
ing of  pigs,  bleating  and  coughing  of  sheep,  barking  of  dogs, 
crowing  of  cocks,  cackling  of  hens,  and  especially  a  goodly 
quantity  of  fleas  and  vermin,  of  no  small  portion  of  which 
we  were  participants;  and  all  with  an  open  barn  door 
through  which  a  fresh  northwest  wind  was  blowing." 

They  sought  in  a  quiet  way  to  insinuate  their  doctrines 
into  the  minds  of  those  whom  they  met  in  familiar  converse. 
Remembering  one  of  the  declared  purposes  of  their  com- 
mission, they  also  sought  every  opportunity  to  acquaint 
themselves  with  the  religious  conceptions  of  the  Indians,  and 
expressed  themselves  in  terms  of  indignation  at  the  frauds 
perpetrated  upon  the  natives.  "Although,"  sav  they,  "it  is 
forbidden  to  sell  drink  to  the  Indians,  yet  every  one  does  it, 
and  so  much  the  more  earnestly,  and  with  so  much  greater 
and  burning  avarice,  that  it  is  done  in  secret.  To  this  extent 
and  further  reaches  the  damnable  and  insatiable  covetous- 
ness  of  most  of  those  who  here  call  themselves  Christians." 

Shortly  after  the  date  of  this  observation  an  event 
occurred  which  determined  Maryland  as  the  place  of  the 


303]  Colonisation  in  America.  33 

Labadist  settlement  in  America.  This  event  is  recorded  in 
the  journal  as  follows :  "From  this  time  (October  18) 
to  the  twenty-second  of  October,  nothing  especially  took 
place,  except  that  we  spoke  to  one  Ephraim,  a  young  trader, 
who  was  just  married  here,  and  intended  to  go  to  the  South 
River,  where  He  usually  dwelt,  for  which  purpose  he  was 
only  waiting  for  horses  and  men  from  there."1  Thus  is 
described  the  meeting  of  the  Labadist  commissioners  with 
Ephraim,  the  eldest  son  of  Augustine  Herrman.  They 
thankfully  accepted  his  invitation. 

Their  journal  of  daily  events  during  this  journey  is  not 
noteworthy  for  the  purposes  of  this  study,  save  as  it  com- 
ments upon  and  characterizes  the  Quakers,  for  whom  they 
express  the  greatest  contempt,  notwithstanding  the  high 
esteem  in  which  the  Society  of  friends  was  held  at  Weiward. 
They  speak  of  their  experience  at  Burlington,  a  Quaker  vil- 
lage, as  follows :  "We  went  again  to  the  village  this  morn- 
ing, and  entered  the  ordinary  exhorter's  house,  where  we 
breakfasted  with  Quakers,  but  the  most  worldly  of  men  in 
all  their  deportment  and  conversations.  We  found  lying 
upon  the  window  a  copy  of  'Virgil,'  as  if  it  were  a  com- 
mon hand-book,  and  also  Helmont's  book  of  medicine,  whom, 
in  an  introduction  which  they  have  made  to.  it,  they  make 
pass  for  one  of  their  sect,  although  in  his  lifetime  he  did 
not  know  anything  about  Quakers,  and  if  they  had  been  in 
the  world  or  should  have  come  into  it  while  he  lived,  he 
would  quickly  have  said  no  to  them ;  but  it  seems  these  peo- 
ple will  make  all  those  who  have  had  any  genius  in  any 
respect  more  than  common,  pass  for  theirs,  which  is  great 
pride,  wishing  to  place  themselves  far  above  all  others; 
whereas  the  most  of  them  whom  I  have  seen  as  yet  are 
miserably  self-minded  in  physical  and  religious  knowledge."1 

Further  in  their  journal  they  again  describe  their  ex- 
perience with  the  Quakers:  "In  the  evening  there  also 
arrived  three  Quakers,  one  of  whom  was  the  greatest  pro- 

1  "Memoirs  of  the  Long  Island  Historical  Society,"  vol.  I,  p.  153. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  176. 


34  The  Labadist  Colony  in  Maryland.  [304 

phetess,  who  traveled  through  the  whole  country  in  order 
to  quake.  She  lives  in  Maryland,  and  forsakes  husband 
and  children,  plantation  and  all,  and  goes  off  for  this  pur- 
pose. She  had  been  to  Boston,  and  was  there  arrested  by 
the  authorities  on  account  of  her  quakery.  This  worthy 
personage  came  here  in  the  house  where  we  were,  although 
Ephraim  avoided  her.  They  sat  by  the  fire  and  drank  a 
dram  of  rum  with  each  other,  and  in  a  short  time  afterwards 
began  to  shake  and  groan  so  that  we  did  not  know  what  had 
happened  and  supposed  they  were  going  to  preach,  but 
nothing  came  out  of  it.  I  could  not  endure  them  and  went 
out  of  doors."  The  next  day  the  journalist  continues,  "The 
dinner  being  ready  I  was  placed  at  the  table  next  to  the 
before-named  prophetess,  who,  while  they  all  sat  at  the  table, 
began  to  groan  and  quake  gradually  until  at  length  the 
whole  bench  shook,  then  rising  up  she  began  to  pray,  shriek- 
ing so  that  she  could  be  heard  as  far  as  the  river."1 

The  following  day  they  record  their  arrival  at  New 
Castle,  where  they  were  welcomed  to  Ephraim  Herrman's 
home2  by  his  sister,  whom  they  describe  as  "a  little  volatile, 
but  of  a  sweet  and  good  disposition."  Here  they  met  Mr. 
John  Moll,  a  man  of  considerable  distinction  in  the  affairs  of 
Delaware,  and  with  whom  they  had  previous  acquaintance 
in  New  York,  and  who  became  one  of  their  converts.  Con- 
cerning- Ephraim  and  his  wife,  they  confidently  expressed 
the  hope  that  they  would  yet  bring  forth  the  seed  the  Lord 
had  sown  in  them  in  his  own  time.  A  devout  hope  which 
was  realized  in  the  case  of  Ephraim  to  the  sorrow  of  his 
wife. 

The  two  Labadists  next  lepaired  to  the  home  of  Mr. 
Moll,  expecting  to  be  met  there  by  servants  of  Casparus 
Herrman,  who  were  to  conduct  them  to  their  master's  plan- 
tation. They  digress  enough  in  their  journal  to  describe 
the  system  of  indented  servitude  which  they  found  on  Mr. 
MolPs  plantation  and  which  they  strongly  denounce. 

1  "Memoirs,"  pp.   182-183,   186.  *  Ibid.,  p.  188. 


305]  Colonisation  in  America.  35 

They  proceeded  to  Casparus  Herrman's,  and  in  his 
absence  they  examined  into  the  suitability  of  the  "Manor" — 
St.  Augustine's — :for  their  purposes.  The  next  day  they 
visited  Augustine  Herrman's,  meeting  Casparus  Herr- 
man  on  the  way.  They  describe  "Bohemia  Manor"  as  a 
noble  piece  of  land,  and  speak  of  Maryland  generally  as 
the  most  fertile  portion  of  North  America,  and  add  that  it 
could  be  wished  that  it  were  also  the  most  healthy.  They 
presented  to  Augustine  Herrman  letters  of  introduction 
from  his  eldest  son.1  The  worthy  Bohemian  appears  to 
have  been  attracted  to  the  two  Labadists,  and  assured  them 
that  while  he  would  not  consent  to  sell  or  hire  his  land  to 
Englishmen,  yet  they  might  buy  what  they  desired  cheap. 
Without  entering  into  a  definite  contract  for  the  transfer 
of  land  to  the  Labadists,  Augustine  Herrman  rendered 
himself  legally  liable  for  such  a  transfer,  so  that  on  the 
return  of  the  Labadists  to  America  with  colonists,  the  con- 
summation of  the  sale  of  a  portion  of  his  estates  to  them 
was  enforced  by  law.  "Bohemia  Manor"  was  free  from  the 
objection  which  they  made  to  the  plantation  of  Casparus 
Herrman.  viz :  that  it  lay  along  a  road  "and  was,  therefore, 
resorted  to  by  every  one,  especially  by  these  miserable 
Quakers." 

The  Labadists  proceeded  to  New  Castle,  Delaware, 
where  they  were  cordially  received  by  their  friend  Ephraim 
Herrman.  The  following  Friday,  Augustine  Herrman  was 
sent  for  by  his  father,  the  Labadists  supposing  the  sum- 
mons to  have  reference  to  their  proposed  land  transaction 
with  the  elder  Herrman.2  In  view  of  Ephraim's  friend- 
ship for  them  they  congratulated  themselves  that  this 
augured  well  for  their  prospects.  But  in  view  of  subsequent 
developments  it  is  probable  that  Augustine  Herrman's  sus- 
picions had  been  aroused  as  to  the  Labadists,  and  that 
he  sent  for  his  son  in  order  to  sever  his  connection  with 
them.  This  is  abundantly  borne  out  by  the  fact  that  the 


1  "Memoirs,"  p.  195.  *Ibid.,  p.  225. 


36  The  Labadist  Colony  in  Maryland.  [306 

Labadists  had  subsequently  to  resort  to  law  to  compel  Herr- 
man  to  hold  to  his  engagement  and  to  transfer  to  them 
the  land  for  which  they  had  negotiated.  Besides  this,  in  a 
codicil  to  the  will  of  Augustine  Herrman,  which  was  made 
not  a  great  while  subsequent  to  this,  provision  is  made  for 
the  appointment  of  three  of  his  neighbors  as  his  executors, 
instead  of  his  son  Ephraim,  the  motive  assigned  for  the 
change  being  that  Ephraim  adhered  to  the  Labadist  faction, 
and  was  using  his  best  efforts  to  proselyte  his  brothers  and 
sisters,  and  he  feared  the  Labadists  would  become,  through 
Ephraim,  sole  owners  of  all  his  lands.  Nor  were  his  fears 
groundless. 

Having  accomplished  their  mission  to  America,  the 
Labadist  commissioners  returned  to  New  York  to  embark 
for  their  own  country.  Until  their  departure  their  journal 
is  prolix  with  conversations  held  with  various  persons  on 
the  subject  of  religion,  some  of  whom  are  afterwards  met 
in  connection  with  the  Labadist  settlement  in  Mary- 
land. The  policy  of  the  Labadists  was  to  enlist  converts 
by  personal  converse,  and  not  by  preaching.  They  attended 
church  service  whenever  possible  on  Sundays,  for  pruden- 
tial reasons  alone,  as  they  themselves  admit.  They  studi- 
ously avoided  bringing  themselves  into  public  notice,  as 
though  fearful,  lest  the  object  of  their  visit  to  the  country 
becoming  known,  their  plans  might  miscarry.  While  await- 
ing a  ship  in  which  to  take  passage,  they  received  a  visit 
from  Ephraim  Herrman  and  his  wife  in  fulfillment  of  a 
promise  made  them  on  their  departure  from  New  Castle. 

A  notable  event  which  occurred  during  their  waiting 
was  a  visit  paid  to  the  Labadists  by  Pieter  Beyaert,  "a 
deacon  of  the  Dutch  Church,"  whom  they  describe  as  "a 
very  good  sort  of  a  person,  whom  God  the  Lord  began  to 
teach  and  enlighten,  both  ir  regard  to  the  destruction  of 
the  world  in  general  and  of  himself  in  particular."1  This 
was  an  ancestor  of  the  Bayards,  of  Delaware.  He  later  left 

1  "Memoirs,"  pp.  343-344- 


307]  Colonisation  in  America.  37 

New  York  and  removed  to  the  vicinity  of  Casparus  Herr- 
man's  home,  and  was  subsequently  a  member  of  the  Laba- 
dist  community. 

On  June  19  the  Labadists  embarked  for  Boston,  intend- 
ing to  visit  that  place  before  starting  for  Weiward.  While 
at  New  York  their  reticence  with  regard  to  themselves  and 
their  apparent  lack  of  definite  purpose,  had  awakened  sus- 
picions and  surmises  concerning  them,  so  that  they  were 
variously  credited  with  being  Roman  Catholic  priests, 
Quakers,  Brownists  and  David  Jorists.  At  Boston  they 
surrounded  themselves  with  the  same  air  of  mystery  and 
were  suspected  of  being  Jesuits. 

John  Eliot,  the  missionary  to  the  Indians,  to  whom  they 
sold  copies  of  their  publications,  enjoyed  the  exceptional 
distinction  of  being  the  only  religionist  outside  of  their  own 
faith,  of  whom  they  had  a  favorable  word  to  say ;  due,  per- 
haps, in  some  measure  to  the  fact  that  work  among  the 
Indians  was  one  of  the  avowed  purposes  of  their  own  com- 
ing to  America.  They  represent  Eliot  as  expressing  him- 
self as  highly  pleased  with  the  principles  of  their  faith  and 
as  profoundly  grateful  to  God  for  sending  such  pious  people 
to  the  New  World.  On  the  twenty-third  day  of  July,  the 
Labadists  set. sail  for  Europe. 


CHAPTER  V. 
LABADISTS  AND  THE  MANOR. 

In  1683  the  two  Labadists  returned  again  to  Mary- 
land, bringing  with  them  the  nucleus  of  a  colony.  As  has 
been  stated  already,  Augustine  Herrman  refused  to  con- 
summate the  sale  of  his  land  to  them,  and  they  only  suc- 
ceeded in  obtaining  what  has  since  been  known  as  the  Laba- 
die  tract,  by  recourse  to  law.  The  deed  is  executed  to  Peter 
Sluyter  (alias  Vorstman),  Jasper  Danckers  (alias  Schil- 
ders,  of  Friesland),  Petrus  Bayard,  of  New  York,  and  John 
Moll  and  Arnold  de  la  Grange  in  company.  This  deed  is 
dated  August  n,  I684-1  The  tract  conveyed  embraced  four 
necks  of  land  eastwardly  from  the  first  creek  that  empties 
into  Bohemia  River,  from  the  north  or  northeast  to  near 
the  old  St.  Augustine  or  Manor  Church.  It  contained 
thirty-seven  hundred  and  fifty  acres. 

Those  who  were  associated  with  Sluyter  and  Danckers 
in  this  land  transaction  are  all  persons  who  have  been 
referred  to  before  in  this  paper.  They  were  all  professed 
converts  to  Labadism.  Soon  after  they  had  received  the 
deed  of  the  land.  Moll  and  la  Grange  conveyed  their  inter- 
est in  it  to  Sluyter  and  Danckers.  Bayard  retained  his 
interest  until  1688,  when  he  seems  to  have  left  the  commu- 
nitv  and  returned  to  his  wife.2 


1  "Baltimore  County  Records." 

*  He  and  Ephraim  Herrman  had  both  separated  from  their  wives 
on  embracing  Labadism.  There  is  a  tradition  that  Augustine  Herr- 
man pronounced  a  curse  upon  his  son  Ephraim  that  he  might  not 
live  two  years  after  his  union  with  the  Labadists,  and  he  actually  did 
die  within  that  time,  but  not  before  he  had  repented  of  joining  the 
Labadists,  and,  like  Bayard,  returned  to  his  wife. 
38 


309]  Labadists  and  the  Manor.  89 

The  advent  of  the  Labadists  into  Maryland  does  not 
seem  to  have  attracted  great  attention.  The  aggressive 
spirit  which  characterized  the  Labadists  in  The  Netherlands 
did  not  manifest  itself  in  the  New  World.  The  additions 
to  the  community  were  made  largely  from  converts  among 
their  own  countrymen  of  New  York. 

The  industrial  activities  of  the  Labadists  show  the 
influence  upon  them  of  new  conditions.  Slave  labor  and 
the  cultivation  of  tobacco  had  been  two  objections  advanced 
against  the  planting  of  a  colony  in  America,  yet  notwith- 
standing the  virtuous  indignation  expressed  in  their  journal 
against  these  practices,  we  find  the  Labadists  engaged  in 
cultivating  tobacco  extensively,  and  using  for  the  purpose 
the  slave  labor  that  was  so  abhorrent  to  them.  In  addition 
to  the  cultivation  of  tobacco,  the  culture  of  corn,  flax  and 
hemp,  and  cattle  raising  were  prominent  among  their  indus- 
tries. 

But  the  main  purpose  of  the  community  was  not  rapidly 
accomplished.  Their  maximum  development  but  slightly 
exceeded  a  hundred  men,  women  and  children.1  The  feel- 
ing of  detestation  for  them  expressed  by  Herrman  in  a 
codicil  to  his  will,  seems  to  have  been  very  generally  shared 
by  their  neighbors.  This  was  doubtless  in  part  due  to  the 
distrust  engendered  by  their  peculiarities  and  their  seclu- 
siveness  of  life.  The  peculiar  forms  of  the  Labadists  were 
not  favorable  to  the  propagation  of  their  faith ;  so  that  there 
seems  to  have  Been  no  attempt  whatever  by  energetic  public 
preaching  or  by  missionary  efforts  among  the  Indians,  to 
realize  the  hopes  of  the  mother  community  in  sending  them 
out.  The  spirit  of  zeal  for  the  salvation  of  men  that  gave 
rise  to  Labadism  was  not  manifested  by  the  Church  in  Mary- 
land. It  may  be  that  the  report  of  the  decline  of  their  faith 
at  Weiward  had  a  disheartening  effect  upon  them.  But, 
however  this  may  be,  the  fact  remains  that  the  Maryland 
Colonists  whom  the  Labadists  in  their  journal  describe  as 

1  Samuel  Bownas :   "Life,  Travels,  Experiences,"  etc.,  p.  9. 


40  The  Labadist  Colony  in  Maryland.  [310 

very  godless  and  profane,  were  little  bettered  by  the  coming 
of  the  Labadists  among  them.  Their  efforts  in  this  direc- 
tion were  confined  to  endeavors  at  proselyting  individuals, 
and  frequently  those  were  selected  for  their  proselyting 
attempts,  who  would  bring  some  substantial  material  bene- 
fits to  the  community. 

In  1698  a  division  of  the  "Labadie  Tract"  was  effected, 
Sluyter  conveyed,  for  a  mere  nominal  rent,  the  greater  part 
of  the  land  which  he  possessed  to  a  number  of  the  promi- 
nent men  of  the  community.  He  reserved  one  of  the  necks 
of  land  and  became  very  wealthy.  In  1722  he  died.  Though 
up  to  that  time  there  was  still  kept  up  some  sort  of  organi- 
zation among  the  Labadists,  yet  the  division  of  1698  marked 
the  disintegration  of  the  community,  as  did  a  similar  division 
at  Weiward,  at  about  the  same  time.  There,  however,  the 
dissolution  came  by  consultative  action,  the  Labadists  return- 
ing to  the  Reformed  Church  became  a  leaven  of  profound 
spirituality,  and  their  influence,  it  is  affirmed,  never  died. 
The  dissolution  in  Maryland  came  by  the  logic  of  events. 
The  community  dwindled  into  extinction.  Five  years  after 
the  death  of  Sluyter,  the  Labadists  had  ceased  to  exist  as  a 
community;1  and  were  it  not  for  certain  prominent  families 
descended  from  them,  whose  genealogy  has  been  carefully 
traced  by  the  Rev.  C.  Payson  Mallary,  in  his  excellent 
monograph,2  the  community  on  "Bohemia  Manor"  would 
be  but  a  memory. 

When  we  come  to  examine  into  the  cause  of  the  failure 
of  Labadism  to  permanently  establish  itself  in  the  New 
World,  we  find  it  to  be  attributable  to  that  assertion  of  indi- 
vidualism which  has  proved  destructive  to  all  attempts  at 
founding  religious  or  industrial  communities,  subsequent  to 
this  first  community  ever  attempted  in  America.  But  be- 
sides this  weakness,  inherent  in  the  communistic  system, 
there  were  particular  contributing  causes  for  the  failure  of 
the  Labadist  ideal.  Of  these  particular  causes  those  result- 

1  Samuel  Bownas :  "Life,  Travels,"  etc. 

*  C.  Payson  Mallary :   "Ancient  Families  of  Bohemia  Manor." 


311]  Labadists  and  the  Manor.  41 

ing  from  the  system  itself  were  more  potential  than  those 
due  to  the  environment  in  which  it  was  placed.  It  was  con- 
cerned more  with  intensive  spiritual  cultivation  than  with 
extensive  propagation.  It  could  operate  more  successfully 
upon  those  who  were  longing  to  separate  themselves  from 
worldiness,  and  were  thus  responsive  to  the  profound  pietis- 
tic  aspirations  which  were  the  breath  of  the  Labadist  faith. 
The  Labadist  Church  was  not  a  pioneer  but  a  reforming 
church.  But  besides  this  it  had  as  a  heritage  from  its  foun- 
der, formularies  and  disciplinary  methods,  which  militated 
against  it  even  in  those  countries  where  it  was  originally 
developed.  The  communistic  form  of  religion  is  not  suited 
to  longevity  or  large  accomplishments,  and  must  ever  re- 
main a  Utopian  ideal. 

The  personal  character  of  those  at  the  head  of  the  com- 
munity would  of  itself  have  operated  against  its  success. 
Sluyter,  though  a  man  of  almost  morbid  religious  tendencies, 
was  yet  a  man  of  strong  mercenary  instincts ;  and  the  merce- 
nary motive  seems  to  have  gained  the  ascendency  in  the 
community. 

Had  Sluyter  been  possessed  of  the  strong  traits  of 
character  which  presaged  success  to  the  pioneers  of  Puritan- 
ism, Catholicism,  Quakerism,  or  any  of  the  other  vigorous 
systems,  which  had  already,  or  which  subsequently  came 
with  a  strong-  hand  to  possess  the  New  World  for  God, 
Labadism  might  have  wrought  itself  into  the  religious  life 
of  the  Colonies  as  effectively  as  did  any  of  these  systems  of 
faith.'  Yet  the  decline  of  the  Mother  Church  at  Weiward, 
not  only  had  a  disheartening  effect  upon  the  Maryland 
Cfiurch,  but  so  intimately  connected  were  they  by  the  Laba- 
dist polity,  that  the  downfall  of  the  communal  fabric  at 
Weiward,  meant  assuredly  dissolution  in  Maryland,  as  the 
Labadist  system  had  in  it  no  latent  possibilities  of  adaptation 
to  new  conditions. 

And  now,  perhaps  this  paper  cannot  find  a  more  fitting 
close  than  is  offered  by  a  glance  at  the  declining  fortunes  of 
"Bohemia  Manor."  Augustine  Herrman,  its  founder,  had 


42  The  Labadist  Colony  in  Maryland.  [312 

cherished  the  ambition  of  perpetuating  his  name  through  a 
line  of  male  descent,  and  desired  that  each  of  his  male 
descendants  in  the  line  of  primogeniture  should  incorporate 
in  his  name,  the  name  of  Augustine,  on  coming  into  pos- 
session of  "Bohemia  Manor."  The  free  use  of  his  name,  or 
that  of  his  native  country,  all  point  to  the  supreme  passion 
of  the  worthy  Bohemian. 

He  made  fiis  last  will  in  1684,  and  did  not  long  survive. 
The  stone  which  once  marked  his  resting-place  is  now  en- 
cased in  a  wooden  box.  But  the  place  of  burial  of  Augus- 
tine Herrman  is  beyond  the  possibility  of  accurate  location. 

His  burial  on  his  manorial  estates  carried  out  a  pro- 
vision of  a  will  which  he  made,  and  which,  though  never 
proved,  is  preserved  among  the  land  records  of  Baltimore 
County.  It  is  as  follows :  "I  do  appoint  my  burial  and 
sepulchre,  if  I  die  in  this  bay  or  Delaware,  to  be  in  'Bohemia 
Manor/  in  my  garden  by  my  wife,  Johanna  Varlett's,  and 
that  a  great  sepulchre  stone  shall  be  erected  upon  our  graves, 
three  feet  above  the  ground,  like  unto  a  table,  with  engraven 
letters  that  I  am  the  first  seater  and  beginner  of  'Bohemia 
Manor,'  Anno  Domini  1660,  and  died,"  etc.1 

Besides  the  slab  of  oolite  bearing  this  inscription,  the 
devastation  of  fire  and  the  ravages  of  time  have  left  few 
traces  of  the  glory  of  other  days,  while  the  knowledge  of 
the  Labadists  has  become  such  a  fading  tradition  in  the 
locality  where  their  history  was  developed,  that  very  many 
who  have  been  born  and  reared  in  the  vicinity  of  "Bohemia 
Manor,"  have  never  heard  of  the  sect  which  once  flourished 
in  a  mild  way  under  the  broad  toleration  of  the  religious 
policy  of  Maryland's  proprietaries. 


1  "Baltimore  County  Land  Records,"  Book  I.  S.,  No.  I.  K. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY. 


Anthology  of  The  New  Netherlands. 

Archives  of  Maryland. 

Archives  of  Pennsylvania. 

Albany  Records. 

Annales  des  Provinces-Unies.    Tome  II. 

Browne,  Wm.  Hand :     History  of  Maryland. 

Bozman :    History  of  Maryland. 

Breviate :     Penn  vs.  Calvert. 

Brakel,  Wm.  A. :  Leer  en  Leyding  der  Labadisten  ontdekt.  Rot- 
terdam, 1738. 

Bacon :   Laws  of  Maryland. 

Berkum,  H.  van :  De  Labadie  en  de  Labadisten.  2  vols.  Sneek, 
1851. 

Bownas,  Samuel :  Account  of  Life,  Travels  and  Christian  Expe- 
riences. 1756. 

Booth,  Mary  J. :    History  of  the  City  of  New  York. 

Croes,  Gerard :    Historia  Quakeriana. 

Calvert  Papers,  Maryland  Historical  Society. 

Colonial  Documents,  New  York.     Vol.  2. 

Capek,  Thomas :     Pomatsky  Cesky'ch  Emigratu  Americe. 

Dittleback,  Peter:    Verval  en  Val  Labadisten.     Amsterdam,  1692. 
Documentary  History  of  New  York. 

Genealogical  and  Biographical  Register  of  New  York. 

Hazard :    Annals  of  Pennsylvania. 

Hanson :    Old  Kent. 

Herrman,  Augustine,  Journal  of.     Pennsylvania  Historical  Society. 

Portfolio,  Maryland  Historical  Society. 

Histoire  Curietise  de  la  Vie,  de  la  Conduite,  et  des  vrais  sentiments, 
du  Sr.  Jean  de  Labadie.  The  Hague,  1670. 

Johnston,  George:    History  of  Cecil  County. 


44  Bibliography. 

Koelman,  J.:     Historisch  Verhael  nopens   der    Labadisten  Scheur- 

ingh.    Amsterdam,  1683. 
Der  Labadisten  dwalingen  ontdekt. 
Kirkpatrick,  Mrs.  Jane :    The  Light  of  Other  Days. 
Kok :    Vanderlandsch  Woordenboek. 

Lednum :     Methodism  in  America. 
Lendran:    History  of  Delaware. 

Lignon,   P.  Du :     Catechismus  of  Christelyke  onderwyzinge   voor- 
stellende  de  voornaamste,  waarheyden  des  geloofs,  etc.,  in  syn 
Leven  Herder,  etc.     Amsterdam,  1683. 
Land  Records  of  Cecil  County. 
Land  Records  of  Baltimore  County. 

Labadie,  J.  de:    Traite  de  la  grace  et  la  vocation  efficace. 
Declaration  de  la  Foi.     Montauban,  1650. 
Practique  des  Oraison,  mentale  et  vocale.     Montauban,  1656. 
Le  Heraut  du  grand  Roi  Jesus. 
Declaration  Chretienne  et  Sincere. 
Declaration  contenant  les  raison  qui  1'ont  oblige  a  quitter  la 

Communion  de  1'Eglise  Romaine,  etc.    Geneva,  1670. 
Abrege   du   Veritable   Christianisme,   ou   recoeuil    des   maximes 

Chretiennes,  etc.    1685. 
Lamb,  Martha  J. :    History  of  the  City  of  New  York. 

Mollerus :     Cimbria  Littera.    Tome  III. 

McMahon:    History  of  Maryland. 

Mosheim:    History  of  the  Christian  Church. 

Maudict:    Avis  Charitable  a  M.  M.  Geneve,  touchant  la  vie  de  Sr. 

Jean  Labadie,  etc.     Lyons,  1664. 

Mallary,  Rev.  Chas.  Payson:  Ancient  Families  of  Bohemia  Manor. 
Publications  of  the  Delaware  Historical  Society. 

Neil:    Terra  Mariae. 

Penn,  Wm. :  Travels,  4th  ed. 

Scharf :   History  of  Maryland. 

Smith,  Wm. :    History  of  the  City  of  New  York. 

Sjoerds,  Foeke :  Kort  Vertoog  van  den  Staaten  der  Geschiedenissen 
der  Kerke  des  N.  T. 

Strauch,  Herman:  Selbst-verlougnung  oder  dem  Selbs  und  dessen 
mancherly  Arten  Johan  de  Labadie  in  Franzosischer  Sprache 
Beschrieben  und  von  Herman  Strauch  verteutscher.  1672. 

Schotel,  J.  D.  T. :    Anna  Maria  van  Schurman.     1853. 


Bibliography. 


45 


Schluter   and   Danckers,   Journal    of.     Memoirs    Long   Island   His- 
torical Society.     Vol.  I. 
Schurman,  A.  M.  van:     Eucleria  of  Uitkiesing  van  het  beste-  deel. 

Amsterdam,  1684. 

Opuscula,  Hebraea,  Graeca,  Latina,  Gallica,  Prosica  and  Metrica. 
Rhenum,  1677. 

Tschackert,    Paul:     Anna    Maria   von    Schurman,    der    Stern   von 
Utrecht,  die  Jungerin  Labadie's.     Gotha,  1876. 

Vonderdonk,  Adrian:    Description  of  New  York. 
Vincent :   History  of  Delaware. 

Wilson,  Gen.  James  Grant :    History  of  the  City  of  New  York. 
An   Old   Maryland   Manor.     Publications    Maryland   Historical 

Society. 
Augustine  Herman,  Bohemian.     New  Jersey  Historical  Society. 

Ypey  en    Dermout:     Geschiedenis    der    Nederlandsche    Hervormde 

Kerk.     Breda,  1819. 
Yvon :    Lere  des  h.    Doops. 

en  du  Lignon :    Verklaringe  van  de  Suyverheyt  des  Geloofs  en 

der  leere  Joh.  de  Labadie.     Middleburg. 
Den  Tabernacel  Gods  ontdekt. 

Essentia   Religionis   patefactae,   seu   doctrina   genuina   fcederum 
Dei,  etc.     Amsterdam,  1684. 


SLAVERY   IN   THE   STATE   OF 
NORTH   CAROLINA 


SERIES  XVII  No.  7- 

JOHNS  HOPKINS  UNIVERSITY  STUDIES 

IN 

HISTORICAL   AND   POLITICAL   SCIENCE 

HERBERT  B.  ADAMS,  Editor 


History  is  past  Politics  and  Politics  are  present  History. — Freeman 


SLAVERY  IN  THE  STATE  OF 


NORTH  CAROLINA 


BY 

JOHN  SPENCER  BASSETT,  Ph.D.  (J.  H.  U.) 

Professor  of  History  and  Political  Science,  Trinity  College  (North  Carolina). 


THE  JOHNS  HOPKINS  PRESS,  BALTIMORE 

PUBLISHED  MONTHLY 
JULY-AUGUST,   1899 


COPYRIGHT    1899    BY    N.    MURRAY. 


PREFATORY  NOTE. 


The  author  desires  to  express  here  his  sense  of  obligation 
to  the  many  friends  who  have  so  kindly  made  suggestions 
and  furnished  him  with  facts  bearing  on  this  monograph. 
Their  cheerful  compliance  with  his  requests  has  made  the 
work  easier  than  it  might  have  been.  Among  those  to 
whom  he  is  especially  indebted  are,  Dr.  B.  F.  Arrington, 
Dr.  Thomas  Hill,  and  Maj.  D.  W.  Hurt,  of  Goldsboro,  N. 
C;  Dr.  K.  P.  Battle,  of  the  University  of  North  Carolina; 
Dr.  J.  D.  Huffham,  of  Henderson,  N.  C. ;  Rev.  J.  B.  Rich- 
ardson, of  High  Point,  N.  C.,  and  Col.  John  D.  Whitford,  of 
Newbern,  N.  C.  To  each  of  these  gentlemen  he  returns 
his  sincere  thanks. 

DURHAM,  N.  C.,  July  7,  1899. 


CONTENTS. 


INTRODUCTION:     General  Characteristics 7 

I.  Legal  Status  of  the  Slave;  The  Slave  in  Court,  Runaways, 
The  Slave's  Right  to  Hunt,  The  Slave's  Right  to 
Travel  and  Trade,  The  Slave's  Right  to  Life 10 

II.     Free    Negroes   and    Emancipation,    Emancipation,    Free 

Negroes 29 

III.  Religious  Life 47 

IV.  Industrial   and  Social  Life;  Population,  Distribution,  The 

Regulation  of  the  Slave's  Life 77 

V.     The  Triumph  of  the  Pro-Slavery  Sentiment;  Slave   Con- 
spiracies, The  Growth  of  the  Pro-Slavery  Sentiment  .    .      94 


Slavery  in  the  State  of  North  Carolina. 


INTRODUCTION :    GENERAL  CHARACTERISTICS. 

The  story  of  slavery  in  the  State  of  North  Carolina  may 
be  considered  in  two  parts,  the  dividing  point  of  which  is  the 
year  1831.  Before  this  year  the  general  conditions  of  the 
slave  were  more  humane  than  after  it.  Public  feeling  on 
the  question  was  then  unimpassioned.  Some  people  opposed 
it;  some  favored  it.  It  seems  to  have  been  discussed  in  a 
sane  way,  as  a  matter  of  public  policy  and  without  any 
extraordinary  excitement  or  recrimination.  After  1831, 
or  about  that  year — for  no  fine  and  distinct  dividing 
point  can  properly  be  made — the  conditions  of  slavery 
became  more  severe.  One  law  after  another  was  passed 
which  bore  hardly  on  the  slave,  until  at  last  he  was 
bound  hand,  foot,  and  brain  in  the  power  of  his  master. 
Moreover,  public  feeling  became  inflamed.  Slavery  could 
no  longer  be  discussed  as  a  public  policy,  and  there  arose 
with  most  people  in  the  State  a  fervent  intolerance  of  all 
views  advanced  against  the  system. 

The  causes  of  this  remarkable  development  have  often 
been  enumerated.  Later  on  in  this  work  I  propose  to 
explain  the  matter  with  some  degree  of  fulness  in  a  chapter 
on  the  development  of  the  pro-slavery  sentiment.  Here 
it  cannot  be  necessary  to  do  more  than  point  out  the  gen- 
eral facts  of  the  process. 

In' this  sense  the  chief  cause  of  this  change  was  the  inven- 
tion of  the  cotton  gin  and  the  consequent  opening  up  of  the 
cotton  industry,  not  only  in  many  parts  of  North  Carolina, 

7 


8  Slavery  in  the  State  of  North  Carolina.  [324 

but  in  the  entire  Gulf  region.  This  gave  a  strong  impetus 
to  the  settling  of  large  plantations  which  hitherto  had  been 
limited  for  the  most  part  to  the  rice  producing  regions.  A 
wide  extension  of  slavery  could  never  have  been  made  on 
the  basis  of  the  small  farm,  where  there  was  necessarily 
much  white  labor.  In  North  Carolina,  and  elsewhere,  no 
doubt,  it  was  noticeable  that  slavery,  even  in  the  days  of  the 
greatest  excitement  over  the  slave  question,  was  of  a  milder 
type  in  the  western  counties.  Here  the  farms  were  small. 
Slave-owners  had  but  few  slaves.  With  these  they  mingled 
freely.  They  worked  with  them  in  the  fields,  ploughing  side 
by  side.  The  slave  cabins  were  in  the  same  yard  with  the 
master's  humble  home.  Slave  children  and,  indeed,  slave 
families  were  directly  under  the  eye  of  the  master,  and  better 
still,  of  the  mistress.  On  such  farms  from  five  to  twenty 
slaves  was  a  usual  quota,  although  their  number  often  went 
to  fifty  and  even  higher.  Could  this  type  of  bondage  have 
predominated  in  the  South,  it  is  likely  that  slavery  would 
sooner  or  later  have  softened  itself,  as  in  the  disintegrating 
Roman  Empire,  into  some  less  austere  forms  of  servile  labor, 
until  at  last  it  came  by  successive  stages  to  the  light  of  free- 
dom. That  it  did  not  happen  was  due  to  the  aristocracy  of 
cotton. 

The  triumph  of  the  cotton  aristocracy  did  not  come  in  a 
day.  In  1800  North  Carolina  was,  except  certain  sections 
in  the  far  East,  in  the  grasp  of  the  small  farm  system.  There 
were  then  many  people  in  the  State  who  opposed  slavery. 
Some  of  them  were  statesmen  who,  like  Jefferson  and  Wash- 
ington, looked  to  the  day  of  freedom.  They  were  strong 
enough  to  offset  and  keep  down  a  certain  thorough-going 
tendency  to  deal  with  slaves  in  a  summary  manner,  which 
from  the  first  was  not  wanting  with  some  legislators.  But 
as  the  large  estate  prevailed,  the  pro-slavery  influence 
became  stronger.  The  arguments  on  this  side  were  natur- 
ally aggressive ;  and  those  on  the  other  side  were  conserva- 
tive. The  former  caught  the  support  of  the  younger  men 
in  politics.  As  time  passed  the  older  party  was  weakened 


325]  Introduction.  9 

by  the  death  of  its  leaders,  and  the  new  party  gained 
strength.  It  was  in  1831  that  the  latter  was  able  definitely 
to  triumph  over  the  former. 

There  are  two  well-known  facts  that  secured  this  decisive 
victory;  that  is  to  say,  the  Nat  Turner  rebellion  and  the 
beginning  of  the  more  vigorous  anti-slavery  agitation  in  the 
North.  The  former  won  the  victory;  the  latter  undoubt- 
edly made  it  forever  sure. 

Looking  behind  these  two  facts,  however,  it  is  worth 
while  to  ask  how  much  the  newer  development  of  slavery, 
due  to  cotton  cultivation,  had  to  do  with  these  two  occur- 
rences. To  attempt  to  answer  this  question  here  would  be  to 
anticipate  the  task  of  the  historian  of  slavery  in  general.  I 
shall  only  venture  to  suggest  that  it  may  be  probable  that 
the  growing  harshness  of  slavery,  either  in  Virginia  or  in 
the  far  South,  led  Nat  Turner  to  make  his  futile  attempt 
at  freedom.  With  more  confidence  I  might  assert  that  the 
certain  extension  of  slavery  in  the  Gulf  States,  as  well  as 
in  the  older  slave  States,  nerved  the  anti-slavery  associates 
of  Garrison  to  a  fiercer  battle.  They  saw,  they  must  have 
seen,  that  the  enemy  against  whom  they  contended  was 
every  day  growing  stronger.  This  aroused  their  efforts 
in  the  first  instance,  and  made  the  fight  more  bitter  through- 
out its  course.  This  increased  strength  of  slavery  was  due 
to  cotton.  But  for  this  the  famous  contest  in  the  Virginia 
Legislature  of  1831  might  have  had  another  end.  Mr. 
D.  R.  Goodloe1  is  authority  for  the  view  that  such  a  triumph 
of  anti-slavery  in  Virginia  would  have  carried  North  Caro- 
lina against  slavery.  Such  a  victory  in  either  State,  or  in 
both,  would  have  broken  the  sectional  balance  in  the  United 
States  Senate  and  secession  would  have  been  blighted  ere  it 
had  sprouted. 


1  See  a  manuscript  sketch  by  Mr.  Goodloe  himself,  which  is  pre- 
served among  the  papers  of  the  Trinity  College  Historical  Society. 


CHAPTER  I. 
THE  LEGAL  STATUS  OF  THE  SLAVE. 

The  spirit  of  the  slavery  legislation  in  the  State  of  North 
Carolina  conforms  to  the  development  that  has  been  indi- 
cated. Before,  and  immediately  after,  1800  many  of  the 
laws  passed  indicated  a  milder  spirit.  After  that  they 
became  more  austere  till  they  finally  partook  of  the  spirit  of 
harshness  to  which  allusion  has  been  made.  But  this  devel- 
opment did  not  come  because  of  deliberate  cruelty  on  the 
part  of  the  slave-owners.  There  are  throughout  the  period 
of  greatest  restriction  enough  humane  laws  and  more  than 
enough  humane  custom  to  show  the  contrary.  It  came  as 
a  logical  consequence  of  the  conviction  that  the  future 
development  of  Southern  society  as  well  as  the  safety  of  the 
Southern  people  demanded  that  slavery  should  be  perpet- 
uated. Before  this  iron  necessity  every  impulse  to  human- 
ity, every  suggestion  for  a  better  elevated  negro  race,  was 
made  to  fall.  Now  and  again  some  sharp-eyed  pro-slavery 
advocate  would  discover  some  way  by  which  it  was  thought 
that  the  slave  could  lift  himself  out  of  slavery,  and  the  way 
would  be  as  promptly  closed  up.  At  one  time  it  was  teaching 
slaves  to  read,  again  it  was  allowing  negroes  to  preach  to 
their  race,  again  it  was  allowing  free  negroes  to  attend 
muster,  and  sometimes  it  was  allowing  a  slave  to  hire  his 
own  time.  In  every  case  the  Legislature  was  prompt  with 
its  veto.  And  yet  it  is  certain  that  the  feeling  of  the  com- 
munity was  not  so  harsh  as  these  laws  indicate.  Severe 
laws  were  often  not  obeyed.  Besides  some  other  provi- 
sions of  the  law,  the  single  case  of  the  State  vs.  Will  is  suffi- 
cient evidence  of  this  humaner  feeling.  This  case  is  remark- 
able because  it  settled,  in  1834,  iust  a*  the  time  when  the 
10 


327]  The  Legal  Status  of  the  Slave.  11 

pro-slavery  sentiment  was  in  the  flush  of  victory  over  the 
conservatives ,  the  question  that  a  slave  had  a  right  to  defend 
himself  against  the  apparently  murderous  attack  of  his 
master  or  overseer.  Such  a  decision  granted  the  slave  all 
the  rights  of  a  moral  conscience  and  gave  the  lie  direct  to 
the  notion  that  the  slave  is  not  a  person,  the  notion  which 
underlay  the  Dred  Scott  decision. 

These  two  opposite  tendencies  of  greater  austerity  and  of 
greater  sympathy  within  the  bounds  of  slavery  existed  con- 
jointly throughout  the  period  we  have  under  consideration. 
In  considering  the  legal  status  of  slavery  as  well  as  the  gen- 
eral social  conditions  of  slaves,  the  reader  will  often  remark 
the  outcropping  of  one  or  both  of  them. 

The  Slave  in  Court. — During  the  period  of  statehood  the 
slave  law  of  1741  continued  the  basis  of  the  law  of  slavery, 
although  it  was  frequently  modified.  By  this  law  two  or 
more  justices  of  the  peace  and  four  freeholders  were  con- 
stituted a  court  to  hold  the  trial  of  a  slave.1  But  in  1793 
(chap.  5)  the  slave  received  the  additional  security  of  being 
tried  for  offenses  involving  life,  limb,  or  member  before  a 
jury  of  twelve  slaveholders  in  open  County  Court,  but  "in 
a  summary  way."  If,  however,  the  County  Court  were  not 
to  meet  in  regular  order  in  fifteen  days  after  the  arrest  of  the 
slave,  the  sheriff  was  to  call  a  special  court  of  three  justices 
of  the  peace  and  twelve  disinterested  slaveholding  jurymen, 
as  before  provided,  and  these  were  to  have  the  powers 
of  the  County  Court  for  the  case  at  issue.  The  owner  was 
to  have  notice  and  might  defend  his  slave,  and  if  the  case 
went  against  the  slave  he  paid  the  costs ;  but  if  the  master 
were  unknown  the  slave  was  allowed  counsel.  What  was 
meant  by  the  expression  "in  a  summary  way"  was  defined 
in  an  explanatory  act  a  year  later  (Laws  of  1794,  chap. 
1 1 ) .  It  was  at  first  intended  doubtless  that  the  court  should 
not  be  bound  by  the  ordinary  rules  of  pleading.  Now  it 
was  declared  with  more  explicitness  that  the  jury  should 

'See  the  author's  "  Slavery  and  Servitude  in  the  Colony  of  North 
Carolina,"  pp.  28-29. 


12  Slavery  in  the  State  of  North  Carolina.  [328 

return  a  verdict  on  the  evidence  submitted  by  the  Court,  and 
that  the  Court  should  give  judgment  "agreeable  to  the  ver- 
dict of  the  jury  and  the  laws  of  the  country."  By  this  it 
seems  that  the  penalties  inflicted  on  white  men  for  the  crimes 
in  question  were  extended  to  slaves  convicted  of  the  same 
crimes. 

Further  guarantees  of  security  were  given  in  1816  (chap. 
14)  when  it  was  provided  that  slaves  charged  with  capital 
offenses  should  be  tried  in  the  Superior  Courts ;  and  that 
the  trial  was  to  be  conducted  as  the  trial  of  a  freeman, 
unless  the  charge  were  conspiracy.  It  was  expressly  stated 
that  there  must  be  a  presentment  by  the  grand  jury ;  that  the 
owner  must  be  notified ;  that  the  hearing  might  be  removed  to 
another  county  on  affidavit  of  owner ;  that  an  offense  clergy- 
able  for  freemen  was  to  be  clergyable  for  slaves;  and  that 
the  slave  with  the  advice  of  his  master  might  challenge  the 
jury  for  cause.  Otherwise  the  trial  was  to  follow  the  law  of 
1777  (chap.  2)  and  that  of  1779  (chap.  6).  If  the  charge 
were  conspiracy  the  trial  was  to  be  by  special  commission  of 
Oyer  and  Terminer  issued  by  the  Governor  to  a  Superior 
Court  on  the  petition  of  five  freeholders  in  the  county  in 
which  the  conspiracy  was  alleged  to  have  occurred.  Conspir- 
acy was  an  exceptional  affair  in  reference  to  the  slave;  but 
for  ordinary  cases  the  status  of  the  slaves  improved  steadily. 
In  1818  a  slave  on  trial  for  his  life  was  given  the  full  right  of 
a  freeman  to  challenge  jurors.1  Thus  in  the  matter  of  his  life 
the  standing-  of  the  slave  approached  nearly  to  that  of  the 
freeman. 

In  1820  a  further  distinction  between  the  trial  of  a  free- 
man and  a  slave  was  obviated  when  it  was  provided  that 
when  a  slave  was  convicted  of  a  capital  offense  the  costs 
should  be  paid  by  the  county.2 

Minor  offenses  were  tried  differently.  By  the  law  of  1741 
they  were  tried  in  the  same  way  as  capital  offenses.  But  in 
1783  (chap.  14)  it  was  enacted  that  a  justice  of  the  peace 

Revision  of  1821,  chap.  972.  2  Ibid.,  chap.  1073. 


329]  The  Legal  Status  of  the  Slave.  13 

before  whom  the  case  of  a  slave  was  brought  should  try  the 
case  at  once,  if  it  were  less  than  a  capital  crime  and  if,  in  his 
judgment,  the  penalty  ought  not  to  be  heavier  than  forty 
lashes.  Such  trial  was  to  be  "in  a  summary  way."  Cases 
between  these  minor  cases  and  capital  cases  gradually 
came  to  be  tried  in  the  County  Courts,  as  capital  cases  were 
to  be  tried  in  the  Superior  Court.  Here  also  the  trial  was  to 
be  conducted  "under  the  same  rules,  regulations  and  restric- 
tions as  the  trials  of  freemen ;"  and  the  slave  was  entitled  to 
a  jury  of  slaveholders.1 

The  law  as  just  stated  remained  in  force  till  the  war,  with 
the  difference  that  the  cases  hitherto  left  to  the  County 
Courts  went  now  to  one  or  more  justices  of  the  peace,  if 
they  chose  to  sit  on  the  case,  and  the  penalty  was  to  be  whip- 
ping not  to  exceed  thirty-nine  lashes  on  the  bare  back. 
Appeal  was,  by  law  of  1842  (chap.  3),  to  be  allowed  to  the 
County  or  the  Superior  Court.  Such  offenses  were  what 
were  called  "inferior  offenses"  and  crimes  which  if  done 
by  free  persons  would  be  cognizable  in  the  County  Court. 
Some  of  the  "inferior  offenses"  ought  to  be  mentioned. 
Among  them  were  insolence  to  a  free  white  person;  slan- 
dering" a  free  white  person,  or  trespassing-  on  the  property 
of  such  a  person  ;  intermarrying  or  cohabiting  with  a  free 
negro;  having  sexual  intercourse  or  indulging  in  grossly 
indecent  familiarity  with  a  white  female ;  trying  to  teach  a 
slave  to  read  or  to  write — the  use  of  figures  excepted; 
exhorting  or  preaching  or  holding  any  other  public  religious 
service  where  slaves  of  different  families  were  assembled; 
playing  cards,  dice  or  nine-pins,  or  gambling  for  money, 
liquor  or  other  property ;  raising  cattle,  hogs,  horses,  etc. ; 
producing  a  forged  pass  or  certificate  of  freedom,  and  some 
other  offenses.  Felonies  and  other  offenses  of  slaves  not 
given  for  trial  to  a  justice  of  the  peace  were  to  be  tried  before 
the  Superior  Court  in  the  manner  of  the  trials  of  freemen 
and  before  juries  of  slave-owners.2  Conspiracy  to  rebel  was 

Revised  Statutes,  1837,  p.  582.  2  Revised  Code,  pp.  510-11. 


14  Slavery  in  the  State  of  North  Carolina.  [330 

also  construed  a  felony  and  punishment  was  to  be  death  or 
transportation. 

The  payment  of  the  owners  for  slaves  executed  by  law 
was  a  hard  matter  to  settle.  At  the  beginning  of  statehood 
the  State  paid  the  owner  for  the  slave,  and  in  I7791  the 
Assembly  fixed  the  maximum  value  of  such  a  slave  at  £700, 
continental  money,  then  much  depreciated.  In  1786  (chap. 
17)  the  Assembly  repealed  all  acts  allowing  payment  for 
executed  slaves,  since,  as  it  declared,  "many  persons  by  cruel 
treatment  of  their  slaves  cause  them  to  commit  crimes  for 
which  many  of  the  said  slaves  are  executed."  Masters  now 
for  financial  reasons  protected  their  slaves  from  prosecution, 
and  there  was  a  demand  for  a  return  to  the  old  system. 
Formerly  the  burden  had  been  borne  by  the  whole  State, 
and  this  was  considered  unfair  to  the  counties  which  had 
few  slaves.  The  final  solution  lay  in  local  action.  In  1796 
(chap.  27)  seven  eastern  counties  were  authorized  to  lay  a 
tax  to  pay  for  slaves  executed  within  their  respective  bor- 
ders, the  owner  to  receive  two-thirds  of  the  value  of  the 
slave,  as  estimated  by  the  jury  that  pronounced  him  guilty. 
This  amount,  however,  wras  not  to  be  paid  unless  the  jury 
was  convinced  that  the  owner  had  properly  fed  and  clothed 
the  delinquent  slave.  A  tax  for  such  a  purpose  was  to  be 
levied  on  the  black  polls  of  the  county.  This  law  seems  to 
have  worked  well  for  within  a  few  years  several  other  coun- 
ties had  been  granted  the  same  privileges. 

Runaways. — In  the  above  section  the  development  was  in 
favor  of  a  more  humane  treatment  of  a  slave.  There  had 
been  an  honest  desire  to  secure  justice  to  the  slave,  and 
the  graver  offenses  were  put  on  the  same  basis  as  in  the 
graver  cases  of  freemen.  It  could  be  done  because  in  no 
way  was  the  perpetuity  of  slavery  concerned.  This  was  not 
true  in  regard  to  runaways.  Such  slaves  threatened  the  very 
life  of  slavery.  The  law  of  colonial  days  on  this  subject  had 
been  stringent;  and  that  was  slightly  modified  after  the 

1  Laws  of  1779,  3d  session,  chap.  12. 


331]  The  Legal  Status  of  the  Slave.  15 

Revolution.  Such  enactments  as  were  made  had  to  do 
chiefly  with  persons  who  aided  runaways.  Thus  in  1779 
(ist  session,  chap,  n)  it  was  made  a  capital  felony  to  steal 
or  seduce  away  a  slave  and  this  law  remained  in  force  till 
the  war.1  This  probably  referred  to  persons  who  stole 
slaves  as  property;  but  in  the  same  act  it  was  further  pro- 
vided that  whoever  aided  a  runaway  to  escape  should  on 
conviction  pay  £100  to  the  owner  of  the  fugitive  and,  in 
addition,  whatever  damages  might  be  incurred.  In  1793 
(chap.  5)  it  was  made  a  capital  felony  for  a  ship  captain  to 
take,  or  knowingly  allow  others  to  take,  a  slave  out  of  the 
State  without  the  written  consent  of  the  slave's  master. 

In  the  days  of  exasperation  against  the  anti-slavery  party 
in  the  North  more  stringent  rules  were  made.  From  1825 
till  1833  there  were  three  laws  passed,  the  substance  of 
which  was  to  make  the  stealing  of  a  slave  with  the  purpose 
of  sending  him  out  of  the  State,  or  the  aiding  of  one  to 
escape  out  of  the  State,  a  felony  punishable  by  death.2  This 
law  remained  in  effect  till  i86o.8  This  was  no  doubt  aimed 
at  Northern  men  bent  on  working  the  Underground  Rail- 
way. For  ordinary  cases  of  persuading  slaves  to  run  away 
or  for  harboring  runaways  one  should  on  conviction  pay  the 
owner  of  the  slave  a  fine  of  $100  and  damages  and  be  liable 
to  fine  of  $100  more,  and  might  furthermore  be  indicted  and 
fined  another  $100  and  imprisoned  not  more  than  six 
months.4  The  latter  amendments  were  passed  in  1821  and 
1830. 

The  Slave's  Right  to  Hunt. — Here,  too,  the  question  of  the 
perpetuity  of  slavery  was  involved.  For  slaves  to  hunt  with 
a  gun  jeopardized  the  masters'  lives.  Throughout  the  period 
of  statehood  there  was  no  disposition  to  relax  the  strict  pro- 
hibition of  this  practice.  Anyone  who  found  a  slave  so 
hunting  might  take  the  gun  for  his  own  use  and  carry  the 

1  Revised  Statutes,  chap.  34,  sec.  10,  and  Revised  Code,  chap.  34, 
sec.  10.  'Revised  Statutes,  chap.  34,  sec.  u. 

8 Revised  Code,  chap.  34,  sec.  n. 

4 Revised  Statutes,  chap.  34,  sec.  73,  and  Revised  Code,  chap.  34, 
sec.  81. 


16  Slavery  in  the  State  of  North  Carolina.  [332 

slave  to  the  nearest  constable  who  should  at  once  give  the 
slave  twenty  lashes  on  his  bare  back  and  the  owner  should 
pay  the  same  reward  as  was  paid  for  taking  up  a  runaway.1 

The  Slave's  Right  to  Travel  and  Trade. — The  patrol,  which 
had  been  established  in  I753,2  became  steadily  a  more  per- 
manent institution  as  the  people  became  more  convinced  of 
the  necessity  of  keeping  slavery  unassailed.  In  1779  (3d 
session,  chap.  8)  it  was  required  to  make  a  general  search 
once  a  month  and  to  report  to  the  County  Court.  Slaves 
off  their  masters'  plantations  on  Sunday  were  to  be  arrested, 
unless  they  had  passes  or  were  in  the  company  of  a  white 
man.  In  1794  (chap.  4)  it  was  provided  that  the  patrol 
should  be  appointed  by  the  County  Court  whenever  it 
should  think  necessary.  No  more  than  six  men  should  be 
appointed  to  the  district  of  each  militia  captain.  The  patrol 
was  to  be  in  office  one  year,  was  to  have  stipulated  fees  and 
one-half  of  the  money  from  fines  under  this  act  of  1794,  and 
was  to  be  exempt  from  road  and  jury  duty.  Two  patrolmen 
going  together  were  to  cover  a  district  at  least  once  a  fort- 
night. They  might  whip — not  to  exceed  fifteen  lashes — 
slaves  found  off  their  master's  land  without  permission. 

In  1802  there  was  an  alarm  over  a  reported  slave  insur- 
rection in  Bertie  and  adjoining  counties.  This  induced  the 
Assembly  to  provide  a  still  more  efficient  patrol.3  The 
County  Court  was  now  authorized  to  appoint  patrolers  in 
such  numbers  and  under  such  rules  as  it  might  think  neces- 
sary, the  patrolers  retaining  the  powers  a'nd  privileges  con- 
ferred by  the  act  of  1794.  To  support  the  patrol  the  County 
Court  was  given  the  authority  to  levy  a  special  tax  of  one 
shilling  on  each  black  poll.  In  the  same  year  (1802,  chap. 
68)  the  militia  of  Gates,  Pasquotank,  and  Camden  Counties 
were  constituted  a  patrol.  The  captains  were  directed  to 
divide  their  companies  into  squads  of  four  or  five  men  who 

1  Revised  Statutes,  chap,  in,  sec.  23,  and  Revised  Code,  chap.  107, 
sec.  26. 

'See  author's  "Slavery  and  Servitude,"  p.  38. 
3  Laws  of  1802,  chap.  15. 


333]  The  Legal  Status  of  the  Slave.  17 

were  to  search  their  respective  neighborhoods  once  in  three 
weeks  and  to  whip  slaves  found  at  large. 

No  further  change  was  made  in  the  patrol  till  1830  (chap. 
16,  sees,  i  and  14)  when  the  County  Court  was  given  author- 
ity to  appoint,  if  it  saw  fit,  a  Patrol  Committee  of  three  per- 
sons in  each  captain's  district  who  might  appoint  as  many 
patrolers  as  they  thought  necessary,  provided  that  this 
should  not  prevent  the  County  Court  from  appointing 
patrols  as  they  saw  fit.  The  patrol  was  now  given  large 
powers  of  arrest.  The  patrolers  were  enjoined  to  visit  sus- 
pected places,  to  disperse  assemblages  of  slaves,  to  be  dili- 
gent in  arresting  runaways,  to  detect  thefts,  and  to  report 
persons  who  traded  with  slaves.  The  patrol,  or  any  two  of 
them,  should  "have  such  powers  as  may  be  necessary  to  a 
proper  discharge  of  the  duties  herein  enjoined,"  ran  the  law. 
If  a  negro  who  was  being  whipped  was  insolent  to  them  he 
might  be  further  punished  not  to  exceed  thirty-nine  lashes 
in  all.  The  Patrol  Committee  was  given  power  to  dis- 
charge patrolers  and  to  appoint  others  in  the  vacancies.  To 
refuse  to  serve  on  the  patrol  was  punished  by  a  fine  of  $20, 
to  go  to  the  support  of  the  patrol,  and  in  1835  (chap. 
22)  it  was  enacted  that  persons  who  refused  or  neglected  to 
perform  the  duties  of  this  office  should  be  fined  $25. 1 

There  was  more  than  one  reason  why  masters  did  not 
want  their  slaves  to  meet  at  slave-meetings  about  the  neigh- 
borhood. It  afforded  opportunity  for  concocting  mischief; 
and  it  demoralized  the  slaves  by  bringing  them  into  contact 
with  the  worst  negroes  of  the  community,  by  keeping  them 
up  till  late  at  night,  and  by  giving  them  a  desire  for  idle- 
ness. Accordingly  the  laws  were  always  against  such  slave- 
meetings.  In  1779  (2d  session,  chap.  10)  it  was  enacted  that 
an  ordinary  keeper  who  entertained  slaves  against  their 
master's  will  should  forfeit  his  license.  In  1794  (chap.  4)  it 
was  declared  that  no  person  should  permit  any  negroes,  bond 


1See  Revised  Statutes,  chap.  86;  also  Tate  vs.  Neale,  I   Hawks, 
418,  and  Revised  Code,  chap.  83. 
2 


18     -  Slavery  in  the  State  of  North  Carolina.  [334 

or  free,  to  meet  on  his  property  for  drinking  or  dancing  on 
penalty  of  fine  of  £  10. 

The  commonest  crime  of  slaves  in  all  ages  is  no  doubt 
theft.  The  negro  has  bee'n  called  thievish  by  nature.  Cer- 
tainly in  American  slavery  he  showed  a  decided  tendency 
to  petty  thievishness,  so  that  it  was  necessary  to  throw  a 
great  deal  of  legal  restraint  around  his  petty  business  rela- 
tions with  others.  Various  laws  were  passed  on  this  sub- 
ject. A  slave  must  not  trade  with  any  other  person  without 
the  written  consent  of  his  master,  the  article  for  which  per- 
mission to  trade  was  given  being  expressly  specified.1 
Between  1826  and  1833  a  series  of  laws  enumerated  the  arti- 
cles which  slaves  might  not  sell  without  the  consent  of  their 
masters.  These  were  articles  raised  on  the  farm,  tools,  food 
supplies,  and  articles  prepared  for  sale,  as  staves,  cloth,  and 
gold  and  silver  bullion.  Other  persons  were  forbidden  to 
sell  anything  at  all  to  slaves ;  provided,  however,  that  this 
should  not  hold  when  slaves  traded  with  the  written  permis- 
sion of  their  masters  between  sunrise  and  sunset,  Sunday 
excepted ;  but  this  proviso  was  not  to  apply  to  the  sale  of 
spirituous  liquors,  arms,  and  ammunition,  unless  they  were 
for  the  master's  own  use.2  How  rigidly  this  law  was  enforced 
may  be  seen  from  the  fact  that  in  1846  (chap.  42)  it  was 
enacted  that  this  section  should  not  be  construed  to  mean 
that  the  master  of  a  slave  was  not  to  give  him  these  prohib- 
ited articles  to  carry  from  one  place  to  another.3  Further 
indication  of  the  rigidness  of  the  law  is  seen  in  the  statement 
of  what  should  be  considered  presumptive  evidence  in  such 
a  case.  It  was  enacted  in  1826  (chap.  13,  sec.  6)  that  if  a 
slave  should  be  found  in  a  place  used  for  trade  between  nine 
o'clock  and  daybreak,  or  at  any  time  unless  his  master  sent 
him ;  or,  if  a  slave  should  stay  in  such  a  place,  unless  sent 
thither  by  his  master,  for  fifteen  minutes  with  the  door  shut ; 
01  if  he  should  come  out  of  such  a  place  with  articles  which 

1  Laws  of  1779,  ist  session,  chap,  n,  and  1788,  chap.  6. 
1  Revised  Statutes,  chap.  34,  sees.  75-78. 
3  Revised  Code,  chap.  34,  sees.  83-92. 


335]  The  Legal  Status  of  the  Slave.  19 

might  have  been  purchased  therein ;  it  should  be  presump- 
tive evidence  against  him.1  Shipmasters,  many  of  whom 
were  from  the  North,  were  forbidden  to  entertain  negroes 
or  mulattoes,  slaves  or  freemen,  on  their  ships  between  sun- 
set and  sunrise  or  on  Sunday,  unless  the  said  negroes  had 
permission  from  their  masters  or  from  a  justice  of  the  peace, 
or  unless  they  were  employed  on  board.2  Negroes  who 
violated  this  law  were  presumed  to  be  disposing  of  stolen 
goods. 

Of  a  somewhat  similar  nature  was  the  custom  of  allowing 
a  slave  to  hire  his  own  time.  This  was  a  practice  by  which 
a  slave  paid  his  owner  a  certain  sum  of  money  for  his  own 
time  and  then  followed  some  line  of  work  in  which  he  was 
proficient.  The  more  industrious  negroes  who  had  trades, 
as  blacksmiths,  carpenters  and  bricklayers,  ofte'n  did  this. 
From  one  hundred  to  one  hundred  and  fifty  dollars  a  year 
was  the  amount  usually  paid  by  a  slave  for  his  own  time. 
Most  slaves  who  hired  their  time  did  it  with  the  intention 
of  buying  their  freedom,  and  many  of  them  accomplished 
their  purpose.  The  practice  gave  the  slave  more  liberty  of 
action  and  it  was  considered  undesirable  both  because  it 
increased  the  number  of  free  negroes  and  because  it  removed 
the  slave  so  hiring  from  the  strict  control  of  the  whites. 
Accordingly  it  was  enacted  as  early  as  1794  (chap.  4)  that 
no  slave  should  hire  his  time  on  penalty  of  being  hired  out 
for  a  year  by  the  sheriff  at  the  direction  of  the  County  Court, 
the  proceeds  to  go  to  the  poor.  There  is  good  reason  to 
believe  that  this  law  was  not  generally  executed,  but  it 
remained  on  the  statute  book  throughout  the  period  of 
slavery.3  Neither  should  a  slave  be  allowed  to  go  about 
as  a  freeman,  using  his  own  discretion  as  to  his  employ- 


1  Revised  Statutes,  chap.  34,  sec.  78,  and  Revised  Code,  chap.  34, 
sec.  88. 

1  Revised  Statutes,  chap.  34,  sec.  76,  and  Revised  Code,  chap.  34, 
sec.  93. 

'Revised  Statutes,  chap,  in,  sec.  31,  and  Revised  Code,  chap.  107, 
sec.  28. 


20  Slavery  in  the  State  of  North  Carolina.  [336 

ment  or  living  in  a  house  to  himself  and  remote  from  other 
slaves,  as  a  freeman,  even  though  his  master  should  con- 
sent.1 

The  Slave's  Right  to  Life. — In  1774  it  was  enacted  that  a 
person  who  willfully  killed  a  slave  should  be  imprisoned  a 
year  for  the  first  offense  and  suffer  death  for  the  second.2 
In  1791  it  was  further  enacted  that  if  a  person  should  be 
convicted  of  maliciously  killing  a  slave  he  should  on  the 
first  conviction  be  held  guilty  of  murder  and  should  "suffer 
the  same  punishment  as  if  he  had  killed  a  freeman."  But 
in  1801,  in  the  case  of  the  State  vs.  Boon,  this  law  was 
declared  inoperative  on  the  ground  that  the  clause  which 
fixed  the  penalty  was  ambiguous.  There  were,  it  was  said, 
various  ways  of  punishing  freemen  for  murder.  Since  the 
law  left  a  shade  of  uncertainty  in  the  penalty  the  prisoner 
was  entitled  to  the  doubt  and  in  this  case  was  released.3 
Two  of  the  five  judges  of  the  court  gave  it  as  their  opinion 
that  the  malicious  killing  of  a  slave  was  murder  at  com- 
mon law,  and  the  three  others  did  not  contradict  the 
opinion.  It  is  possible  that  it  was  under  this  influence  that 
such  a  principle  began  to  be  held  by  the  courts,  since  Chief 
Justice  Taylor  declared  in  1820  that  if  a  white  person  killed 
a  slave  under  such  circumstances  as  constituted  murder  he 
might  have  been  punished  for  that  offense.4  A  difficulty 
arose,  however,  if  the  case  could  be  extenuated  to  man- 
slaughter. No  punishment  was  provided  for  that  offense,  and 
the  prisoner  was  uniformly  discharged.  The  Assembly, 
accordingly,  in  1817  enacted  that  "the  killing  of  a  slave 
shall  partake  of  the  same  degree  of  guilt,  when  accompanied 
with  like  circumstances,  that  homicide  now  does."  This, 
the  Court  held  in  i82O,5  was  designed  "to  make  the  homi- 
cide of  a  slave,  extenuated  by  a  legal  provocation,  man- 
Revised  Statutes,  chap,  in,  sec.  32,  and  Revised  Code,  chap.  107, 
sec.  29. 

2  See  the  author's  "  Slavery  and  Servitude,"  p.  43. 
"North  Carolina  Reports,  vol.  i,  p.  103  (edition  of  1896). 
*Hawks's  Law,  p.  217.  *>  Ibid.,  p.  210,  State  vs.  Tackett. 


337]  The  Legal  Status  of  the  Slave.  21 

slaughter."  After  stating  the  common  law  in  regard  to 
manslaughter  the  Court  added  that  in  the  very  nature  of 
slavery  "many  acts  will  extenuate  the  homicide  of  a  slave, 
which  would  not  constitute  a  legal  provocation  if  done  by  a 
white  person."  The  defining  of  these  acts  was  not 
attempted,  but  it  was  presumed  that  the  Court  and  jury 
would  estimate  them  seriously  in  individual  cases,  with  due 
regard  to  the  rights  of  slaves  and  white  men — "to  the  just 
claims  of  humanity,  and  to  the  supreme  law,  the  safety  of 
the  citizens." 

In  1823  the  Supreme  Court  in  the  case  of  the  State  vs. 
Reed,  declared  directly  that  the  killing  of  a  slave  might  be 
tried  as  murder  at  common  law,  Chief  Justice  Taylor  and 
Justice  Henderson  acquiescing  and  Justice  Hall  dissenting. 
The  grounds  of  the  decision  were  the  law  of  Nature  and 
Christianity.  Justice  Henderson  made  the  very  substantial 
statement  that  the  law  of  slavery  gave  the  master  the  con- 
trol of  the  services  of  the  slave  and  that  it  would  be  not 
too  scrupulous  in  adjusting  the  means  of  enforcing  these 
services.  "But  the  life  of  a  slave  being  in  no  ways  necessary 
to  be  placed  in  the  powers  of  the  owner  for  the  full  enjoy- 
ment of  his  services  the  law  takes  care  of  that ;  and  with  me 
it  has  no  weight  to  show  that,  by  the  laws  of  ancient  Rome 
or  modern  Turkey,  an  absolute  power  is  given  to  the  mas- 
ter over  the  life  of  his  slave.  I  answer,  these  are  not  the 
laws  of  our  country,  nor  the  mode  from  which  they  were 
taken.  It  is  abhorrent  to  the  hearts  of  all  those  who  have 
felt  the  influence  of  the  mild  precepts  of  Christianity."  The 
argument  of  Justice  Hall  was  on  the  basis  that  the  slave 
is  a  chattel.  Now  if  a  slave  be  killed  the  law  provides  that 
the  owner  has  an  action  for  trespass  against  the  slayer.  But 
if  killing  a  slave  be  murder  at  common  law  the  offender 
would  be  answerable  both  civiliter  and  criminaliter.  The 
Legislature  could  not  have  intended  to  create  such  a  condi- 
tion. Besides,  the  Legislature  in  1774  (chap.  31)  passed  a 
law  to  punish  the  killing-  of  a  slave.  If  such  an  offense  had 


22  Slavery  in  the  State  of  North  Carolina.  [338 

been  cognizable  at  common  law  the  Legislature  need  not 
have  made  a  statute  on  the  subject.1 

The  effect  of  this  decision  was  modified  shortly  after- 
wards in  the  case  of  the  State  vs.  Hoover,  where  it  was 
held  that  if  a  slave  died  from  moderate  chastisement  of  his 
master  every  circumstance  which  in  the  general  course  of 
slavery  might  have  hurried  the  master  to  excess  would  be 
tenderly  regarded  by  the  law.  But  where  the  punishment 
was  barbarously  immoderate  and  accompanied  by  painful 
privation  of  food,  clothing,  and  rest,  it  is  not  correction  in 
foro  domcstico,  indicates  deliberate  killing,  and  is  therefore 
murder.2 

The  next  question  to  be  taken  up  in  this  connection  was 
that  of  the  culpability  of  a  white  man  who  cruelly  beat  a 
slave.  In  1823,  in  the  case  of  the  State  vs.  Hale,3  it  was  held 
that  a  battery  committed  on  a  slave,  no  justifying  circum- 
stances being  shown,  was  an  indictable  offense.  But  it  was 
explicitly  stated  that  circumstances  which  would  not  justify 
a  battery  on  a  free  person  might  in  the  nature  of  slavery 
justify  ail  assault  on  a  slave.  "The  offenses,"  said  the 
Chief  Justice  in  a  sentence  which  casts  a  clear  light  on  one 
phase  of  slavery  in  the  South,  "are  usually  committed  by 
men  of  dissolute  habits,  hanging  loose  upon  society,  who, 
being  repelled  from  association  with  well-disposed  citizens, 
take  refuge  in  the  company  of  colored  persons  and  slaves 
whom  they  deprave  by  their  example,  embolden  by  their 
familiarity,  and  then  beat,  under  the  expectation  that  a  slave 
dare  not  resent  a  blow  from  a  white  man."  This  principle 
did  not  apply,  however,  to  the  assault  of  a  master  on  his 
slave.  This  latter  case  was  taken  up  in  1829  in  the  case  of 
the  State  vs.  Mann,4  when  it  was  decided  that  a  master  was 
not  to  be  indicted  for  battery  on  his  slave,  that  he  who  has 

1  North  Carolina  Reports  (new  edition),  vol.  9,  p.  454. 
'See  4  Devereaux  and  Battle,  p.  365. 

s  Ibid.,  p.  582.     Here  the  defendant  is  called  Hale.     Later  cases 
cite  this  case  as  State  vs.  Hall. 
4 North  Carolina  Reports  (new  edition),  13,  p.  263. 


339]  The  Legal  Status  of  the  Slave.  23 

a  right  to  the  services  of  a  slave  has  a  right  to  all  the  means 
of  controlling  his  conduct  that  belong  to  the  owner,  and 
that  this  rule  would  apply  to  the  hirer  of  a  slave.  The 
decision  was  given  by  Justice  Ruffin.  Although,  as  he 
affirmed,  there  was  no  question  about  a  master's  right  to 
inflict  any  kind  of  corporal  punishment  short  of  death  on 
his  slave,  he  still  stated  the  general  grounds  for  such  a 
principle.  There  had  been  no  prosecutions  of  masters  for 
such  an  offense.  Against  this  general  opinion  of  the  com- 
munity the  Court  ought  not  to  hold.  It  was  erroneously 
said  that  the  relation  of  master  and  slave  was  like  that  of 
parent  and  child,  and  it  was  held  that  a  parent  could  not 
commit  a  cruel  battery  on  his  own  son.  The  object  of  the 
training  of  a  son  was  the  life  of  a  freeman,  and  the  means  to 
be  used  was  moral  and  intellectual  instruction.  With 
slavery  it  was  otherwise.  "The  end,"  ran  the  decision,  "is 
the  profit  of  the  master,  his  security  and  the  public  safety; 
the  subject,  one  doomed  in  his  own  person  and  his  posterity, 
to  live  without  knowledge  and  without  the  capacity  to 
make  anything  his  own,  and  to  toil  that  another  may  reap 
the  fruits.  What  moral  considerations  shall  be  addressed 
to  such  a  being  to  convince  him  what  it  is  impossible  but 
that  the  most  stupid  must  feel  and  know  can  never  be  true — 
that  he  is  thus  to  labor  upon  a  principle  of  natural  duty,  or 
for  the  sake  of  his  own  personal  happiness.  Such  services 
can  only  be  expected  from  one  who  has  no  will  of  his  own, 
who  surrenders  his  will  in  implicit  obedience  to  that  of 
another.  Such  obedience  is  the  consequence  only  of  uncon- 
trolled authority  over  the  body.  There  is  nothing  else 
which  can  operate  to  produce  the  effect.  The  power  of  the 
master  must  be  absolute  to  render  the  submission  of  the 
slave  perfect.  I  most  freely  confess  my  sense  of  the  harsh- 
ness of  this  proposition.  I  feel  it  as  deeply  as  any  man 
can ;  and  as  a  principle  of  moral  right  every  person  in  his 
retirement  must  repudiate  it.  But  in  the  actual  conditions 
of  things  it  must  be  so.  There  is  no  remedy.  This  disci- 
pline belongs  to  the  state  of  slavery.  They  [the  discipline 


24  Slavery  in  the  State  of  North  Carolina.  [840 

and  slavery]  cannot  be  disunited  without  abrogating  at 
once  the  rights  of  the  master  and  absolving  the  slave  from 
his  subjection.  It  constitutes  the  curse  of  slavery  to  both 
the  bond  and  free  portion  of  our  population.  *  *  * 
The  slave,  to  remain  a  slave,  must  be  made  sensible  that 
there  is  no  appeal  from  his  master;  that  his  power  is  in  no 
instance  usurped ;  but  is  conferred  by  the  laws  of  man  at 
least,  if  not  by  the  laws  of  God."  The  Courts  could  not 
fix  the  punishment  due  to  the  violations  of  duty  by  the 
slave.  "No  man  can  anticipate  the  many  and  aggravated 
provocations  of  the  master  to  which  the  slave  would  be  con- 
stantly stimulated  by  his  own  passions  or  the  instigations 
of  others  to  give,  or  the  consequent  wrath  of  the  master 
prompting  him  to  bloody  vengeance  upon  the  turbulent 
traitor — a  vengeance  generally  practiced  with  impunity 
because  of  its  privacy."  I  do  not  think  that  one  can  find 
anywhere  in  the  annals  of  modern  justice  a  decision  more 
brutally  logical,  and  more  void  of  that  genial  spirit  of  pro- 
gressive amelioration  which  should  run  through  a  legal 
development.  Justice  Ruffin  announced  his  own  horror 
of  the  decision  he  was  giving  and  consoled  himself  with 
the  thought  that  the  softening  feeling  of  the  masters  in 
general  for  the  slaves  was  increasing  and  with  the  decreas- 
ing numbers  of  the  slaves,  would  eventually  enable  the 
relations  of  slavery  to  be  more  humane — a  result  more 
likely  to  come  in  this  way  "than  from  any  rash  expositions 
of  abstract  truths  by  a  judiciary  tainted  with  a  false  and 
fanatical  philanthropy."  Was  it  not  the  duty  of  the  Court 
to  give  such  a  decision  that  would  help  on  the  humaniz- 
ing process  by  giving  the  Courts  the  right  to  restrain  exces- 
sive cruelty  of  masters  towards  slaves  rather  than  by  crys- 
tallizing into  a  judicial  opinion  the  brutal  theory  of  the 
harshest  days  of  slavery  to  scotch  the  wheels  of  the  progress 
that  it  was  desired  to  see  abroad  ? 

It  was  fortunate  for  the  slave,  it  was  fortunate  for  the 
State,  that  this  spirit  was  not  permanent  in  the  Supreme 


341]  The  Legal  Status  of  the  Slave.  25 

Court  decisions.  In  1834  the  case  of  the  State  vs.  Will,1 
established  the  distinctly  milder  principle  that  a  slave  who 
was  barbarously  attacked  by  his  master  might  defend  him- 
self with  physical  force.  The  facts  of  the  case  were  these : 
Will  was  a  slave  who  became  angry  because  another  slave 
was  allowed  to  use  a  hoe  which  Will  used  and  had  helved 
in  his  own  time.  In  his  rage  he  broke  the  helve  and  went  to 
his  work.  When  the  overseer  knew  of  it  he  took  his  gun 
and  rode  to  the  place  at  which  Will  was  at  work.  He  called 
the  slave  to  him,  who  approached  humbly  with  his  hat  off. 
Some  words  were  exchanged  when  Will  began  to  run.  Then 
the  overseer  fired,  making  a  wound  in  the  back  of  the 
fugitive  which  might  have  proved  fatal.  The  terrified  slave 
was  pursued  and  caught  by  the  overseer  and  two  slaves, 
but  in  the  struggle  of  arrest  he  cut  the  overseer  with  a 
pocket  knife  so  that  the  overseer  bled  to  death.  All  the  cir- 
cumstances showed  that  Will  had  acted  in  supposed  self- 
defense.  His  plea  was  manslaughter — one  of  his  counsel 
was  B.  F.  Moore,2  then  young  and  unknown,  but  after- 
wards one  of  the  leading  lawyers  of  the  State.  At  the  out- 
set Mr.  Moore  was  confronted  by  Judge  Ruffin's  opinion  in 
the  case  of  the  State  vs.  Mann.  These  sentiments  he  dis- 
tinctly challenged.  "It  is  humbly  submitted,"  said  he,  "that 
they  are  not  only  abhorrent  and  startling  to  humanity,  but 
at  variance  with  statute  and  decided  cases."  Judge  Hender- 
son's opinion  in  the  State  vs.  Reed  was  quoted  to  show  that 
the  master's  power  extends  only  to  the  services  of  his  slave. 
Point  by  point  Judge  Ruffin's  opinion  so  far  as  it  related 
to  the  general  relation  of  master  and  slave  was  combated. 
One  eloquent  passage  will  indicate  the  nature  of  the  attack. 
Judge  Ruffin  had  said  that  the  slave  must  be  made  to 
realize  that  in  no  one  instance  was  the  master's  power 
usurped.  This,  exclaimed  Mr.  Moore,  repressed  thought 

1See  "The  Trinity  College  Historical  Society  Papers,"  series  II, 
p.  12;  also  i  Devereaux  and  Battle,  p.  121. 

*Mr.  G.  W.  Mordecai  was  also  associated  with  the  defense,  but 
Mr.  Moore's  argument  won  the  case. 


26  Slavery  in  the  State  of  North  Carolina.  [342 

and  "reduced  into  perfect  tameness  the  instinct  of  self- 
preservation,"  a  result  difficult  to  accomplish  and  lament- 
able if  accomplished.  But  if  the  relation  of  slavery  required 
"that  the  slave  shall  be  disrobed  of  the  essential  features 
that  distinguish  him  from  the  brute,  the  relation  must  adapt 
itself  to  the  consequences  and  leave  its  subjects  the 
instinctive  privileges  of  a  brute.  I  am  arguing  no  question 
of  abstract  right,  but  am  endeavoring  to  prove  that  the 
natural  incidents  of  slavery  must  be  borne  with  because 
they  are  inherent  to  the  condition  itself ;  and  that  any  attempt 
to  punish  the  slave  for  the  exercise  of  a  right  which  even 
absolute  power  cannot  destroy  is  inhuman  and  without  the 
slightest  benefit  to  the  security  of  the  master  or  to  that  of 
society  at  large.  The  doctrine  may  be  advanced  from  the 
bench,  enacted  by  the  Legislature,  and  enforced  with  all  the 
varied  agony  of  torture  and  still  the  slave  cannot  believe 
and  will  not  believe  that  there  is  no  instance  in  which  the 
master's  power  is  usurped.  Nature,  stronger  than  all,  will 
discover  many  instances  and  vindicate  her  rights  at  any  and 
at  every  price.  When  such  a  stimulant  as  this  urges  the 
forbidden  deed  punishment  will  be  powerless  to  proclaim 
or  to  warn  by  example.  It  can  serve  no  purpose  but  to 
gratify  the  revengeful  feelings  of  one  class  of  people  and  to 
influence  the  hidden  animosities  of  the  other." 

The  opinion  was  written  by  Justice  Gaston,  who  two 
years  earlier  had  said  in  a  public  address :  "Disguise  the 
truth  as  we  may,  and  throw  the  blame  where  we  will,  it  is 
slavery  which,  more  than  any  other  cause,  keeps  us  back 
in  the  career  of  improvement."1  Now  he  showed  him- 
self a  humane  judge :  He  said  :  "Unconditional  submis- 
sion is,  in  general,  the  duty  of  the  slave ;  unquestioned  legal 
power  is,  in  general,  the  right  of  the  master.  Unquestion- 
ably there  are  exceptions  to  this  rule.  It  is  certain  that  the 
master  has  not  the  right  to  slay  his  slave,  and  I  hold  it  to 
be  equally  certain  that  the  slave  has  the  right  to  defend 
himself  against  the  unlawful  attempt  of  his  master  to  deprive 

1  Address  at  Chapel  Hill,  June  20,  1832,  p.  24. 


343]  The  Legal  Status  of  the  Slave.  27 

him  of  life.  There  may  be  other  exceptions,  but  in  a  matter 
so  full  of  difficulties,  where  reason  and  humanity  plead 
with  almost  irresistible  force  on  one  side,  and  a  necessary 
policy,  rigorous  indeed,  but  inseparable  from  slavery,  urges 
on  the  other,  I  fear  to  err  should  I  undertake  to  define 
them."  Neither  would  he  define  legal  provocation,  but  he 
did  say  that  a  slave's  unlawful  violence  excited  by  his  mas- 
ter's inhumanity  ought  not  to  be  construed  as  malice.  "The 
prisoner,"  said  the  Court,  "is  a  human  being,  degraded  by 
slavery,  but  yet  having  organs,  senses,  dimensions,  passions 
like  our  own."  No  malice  was  shown  in  the  evidence  and 
the  killing  was  pronounced  manslaughter.  It  was  a  notable 
case  and  it  fixed  a  humaner  spirit  in  the  law  of  slavery  in 
North  Carolina  until  the  end  of  that  institution. 

But  one  more  case  before  the  Supreme  Court  will  be 
mentioned,  that  of  the  State  vs.  Jarrot,1  in  1840.  It  was 
declared,  that  the  difference  between  homicide  through 
malice  and  homicide  through  passion  was  to  hold  as  much 
in  the  trial  of  a  slave  as  in  that  of  a  white  man ;  but  the  same 
matters  which  would  be  sufficient  provocation  for  a  free- 
man would  not  be  sufficient  when  a  slave  had  killed  a  white 
man.  Some  words  of  a  slave  might  be  so  aggravating  as 
to  arouse  the  temporary  fury  which  negatives  the  charge 
of  malice,  "and  this  rule  holds  without  regard  to  personal 
merit  or  demerit  of  the  white  man."  The  insolence  of  a 
slave  would  justify  a  white  man  in  giving  him  moderate 
chastisement  at  the  moment,  but  would  not  authorize  an 
excessive  battery,  or  moderate  correction  after  the  insolence 
was  past.  The  rule  that  where  two  parties  become  angry 
and  fight  on  equal  terms  till  one  kills  the  other  the  crime 
is  manslaughter  is  not  to  apply  to  slaves,  but  to  equals  only, 
it  being  the  slave's  business  to  avoid  such  a  contest.  But 
if  the  battery  endangers  the  slave's  life  it  will  reduce  homi- 
cide by  him  to  manslaughter.2 

1  North  Carolina  Reports,  23,  p.  75. 

*This  decision  also  was  written  by  Judge  Gaston. 


28  Slavery  in  the  State  of  North  Carolina.  [344 

In  regard  to  the  slave's  legal  status  a  curious  case  has 
come  under  my  notice.  The  late  Dr.  John  Manning,  widely 
known  as  Professor  of  Law  at  the  State  University,  told 
me  that  Judge  Ruffin,  the  senior,  told  him  that  a  case  was 
once  decided  in  the  North  Carolina  Supreme  Court  in  which 
it  was  held  that  a  white  man  could  not  be  convicted  of  forni- 
cation and  adultery  with  a  slave  woman,  because  such  a 
woman  had  no  standing  in  the  courts.  The  case,  said  Judge 
Ruffin,  was  decided  early  in  this  century,  but  it  was  agreed 
that  in  the  interest  of  public  morality  it  should  not  be  pub- 
lished.1 

1  Inquiry  of  the  Clerk  of  the  Supreme  Court  fails  to  discover  the 
papers  in  reference  to  the  case  ;  but  since  there  is  no  other  index  to 
the  Supreme  Court  cases  than  the  printed  reports  it  is  quite  possible 
that  the  papers  are  preserved,  but  so  lost  among  a  vast  number  of 
documents  thatonly  a  long  and  careful  search  would  bring  them  to  light. 


CHAPTER  II. 
FREE  NEGROES  AND  EMANCIPATION. 

Emancipation. — During  the  colonial  period  emancipation 
was  forbidden  except  for  meritorious  conduct  to  be 
adjudged  by  the  County  Court,1  and  this  law  was  confirmed 
by  the  Assembly  in  1777  (chap.  6)  and  further  explained 
in  1796  (chap.  5).2  At  the  beginning  of  the  Revolution 
"seme  evil-minded  persons  intending  to  disturb  the  pub- 
lic peace"  liberated  their  slaves  and  left  them  at  large  in  the 
community.  The  authorities  in  Perquimons  and  Pasquo- 
tank  counties  took  up  the  negroes  and  resold  them  into 
slavery.  The  Legislature  confirmed  these  sales  and  pro- 
vided that  other  such  slaves  at  large  might  be  sold  in  the 
same  way;  provided,  however,  that  this  law  did  not  extend 
to  such  of  these  negroes  as  had  enlisted  in  the  patriot  army.3 

These  slaves  had  been  freed  by  the  Quakers,  who  were  at 
that  time  very  active  in  favor  of  emancipation.  Their 
liberated  slaves  were  going  about,  said  the  Assembly,  "to 
the  terror  of  the  people  of  the  State."  The  law  which  for- 
bade their  liberation  was  a  failure,  because  it  left  the  duty 
of  informing  of  its  violation  to  freeholders  only  and  made 
their  action  optional.  To  remedy  this  condition  the 
Assembly  in  1788  (chap.  20)  gave  the  duty  of  informing 
on  such  liberated  slaves  to  any  freeman,  and  thus  secured 
the  co-operation  of  the  landless  whites  who  were  usually 
strangely  willing  to  have  a  fling  at  the  slaves  and  who,  no 


1  See  the  author's  "  Slavery  and  Servitude,"  pp.  64-66. 
3  When  the  Superior  Courts  were  created  the  judging  of  meritorious 
conduct  was  left  to  them.     Revisal  of  1821,  chap.  971. 
3  Laws  of  1779,  2d  session,  chap.  12. 


30  Slavery  in  the  State  of  North  Carolina.  [346 

doubt,  were  anxious  to  get  the  reward  offered  for  such  infor- 
mation. 

After  the  San  Domingo  revolt  in  1791  much  concern  was 
felt  in  the  Southern  States  lest  the  success  of  the  slaves  there 
should  inspire  attempts  at  insurrection  in  the  United  States. 
Several  new  features  of  the  slave  law  were  added,  one  of 
which  provided  that  no  slave  should  be  liberated  unless  he 
could  give  bond  in  the  sum  of  £200  that  he  would  remain 
quiet  and  orderly.1 

In  1830  (chap.  9)  it  was  made  more  difficult  to  emanci- 
pate. Now,  the  petitioner  must  notify  his  intention  at  the 
court  house  and  in  the  State  Gazette  six  weeks  before  the 
hearing  of  the  petition ;  he  must  give  bond  with  two  sureties 
for  $1000  that  the  said  slave  should  conduct  himself  well 
as  long  as  he  or  she  remained  in  the  State,  that  the  slave 
would  leave  the  State  within  ninety  days  after  liberation, 
and  the  said  liberation  should  invalidate  the  rights  of  no 
creditor.  Executors  of  wills  by  which  slaves  were  directed 
to  be  liberated  must  secure  consent  of  the  courts  and  take 
steps  to  send  the  negroes  out  of  the  State  and  guard  against 
the  loss  of  creditors.  A  slave  more  than  fifty  years  old 
might  be  liberated  for  meritorious  conduct  to  be  approved 
by  the  Court  without  subsequently  leaving  the  State,  pro- 
vided that  the  master  swore  that  the  emancipation  was  not 
for  money  and  that  he  gave  bond  that  the  negro  would 
conduct  himself  well  and  not  become  a  charge  on  the 
cou'nty.  No  slave  was  to  be  liberated  except  by  this  law.2 
This  law  remained  in  force  till  the  war.3  Within  the  strict 
conditions  herein  embraced,  ruled  the  Supreme  Court  in 
1841,  it  was  the  policy  to  facilitate  emancipation.4  Besides 
this  method,  slaves  were  occasionally  freed  by  special  Act 
of  the  Assembly. 

1  Laws  of  1795,  chap.  16. 
'Revised  Statutes,  chap,  in,  sees.  57-64. 
3  Revised  Code,  chap.  107,  sees.  45-53. 

4 Cameron   vs.  Commissioners  of    Raleigh  (the   Rex  Will  Case), 
i  Iredell's  Eq.,  p.  436. 


347]  Free  Negroes  and  Emancipation.  31 

Among  the  various  cases  reported  from  the  Supreme 
Court  in  regard  to  emancipation  there  are  several  from 
which  the  point  is  obtained  that  the  freedom  of  slaves  could 
be  acquired  through  prescription.  For  instance,  it  was  held 
that  when  a  woman  who  had  once  been  a  slave,  but  who  for 
thirty  years  or  more,  had  been  treated  as  a  free  person,  and 
her  daughter  with  her,  then  a  granddaughter  must  be  free ; 
for  it  would  be  proper  to  infer  that  so  long  an  enjoyment 
of  freedom  must  have  followed  legal  emancipation.  It  was 
not  attempted  to  fix  the  time  necessary  to  constitute  such 
liberation  by  prescription;  but  in  the  cases  cited  thirty  and 
forty  years  are  the  periods  mentioned.1 

In  Sampson  vs.  Burgwin2  a  decided  tenderness  for  the 
slave  is  observed  in  the  Court.  Here  suit  was  brought  to 
invalidate  the  emancipation  of  a  slave,  because,  being  but  two 
years  old  when  liberated  and  being  freed  along  with  her 
mother,  she  could  not  have  performed  meritorious  ser- 
vices. The  Court  held  that  the  act  of  liberation  was  that 
of  "a  court  of  conclusive  jurisdiction,  and  could  not  be 
impeached  by  evidence  that  she  had  not  and  could  not  per- 
form such  services."  It  also  decided  that  a  petition  of  an 
owner  to  free  slaves  need  not  be  in  writing,  and  that  "in 
an  action  by  a  negro  to  try  his  right  to  freedom  if  evidence 
of  his  being  reputed  to  be  a  freeman  is  offered  it  is  admis- 
sible to  show  in  reply  acts  of  ownership  inconsistent  with 
reputation."  The  opinion  was  by  RufHn,  Chief  Justice. 

Granting  permission  to  liberate  was  not  liberation,  as  was 
held  in  the  case  of  Bryan  vs.  Wadsworth.3  Here  Elizabeth 
Bryan,  of  Craven  County,  had  in  1808  received  permis- 
sion from  the  County  Court  to  liberate  her  slave  Abram 
for  meritorious  services  and  gave  the  bond  required  for 
the  same;  but  further  she  did  not  go.  She  kept  Abram 
as  a  slave  till  1820,  when  she  sold  him.  He  then  sued  for 

1Brookfield  vs.  Stuart,  6  Jones,  p.  156;  Cully  vs.  Jones,  9  Iredell, 
p.  168;  Strange  vs.  Burnham,  12  Iredell,  p.  41. 
2  3  Devereaux  and  Battle's  Law,  p.  28. 
3 1  Devereaux  and  Battle's  Law,  p.  384. 


32  Slavery  in  the  State  of  North  Carolina.  [348 

his  freedom.  He  lost  the  case.  It  was  held  that  only  the 
master  could  emancipate  and  that  the  Court  only  gave  per- 
mission to  emancipate. 

The  harshness  of  the  law  led  to  various  subterfuges  in 
regard  to  emancipation.  It  was  attempted  to  hold  slaves 
in  nominal  servitude,  but  in  real  freedom.  This  was  opposed 
for  the  general  reason  that  it  increased  the  free  negro  class 
and  whenever  a  case  involving  such  a  trick  came  before  the 
Supreme  Court  it  was  severely  handled.  A  case  in  point 
was  that  of  the  Quakers,  which  arose  as  follows:  In  1817 
William  Dickinson  conveyed  a  slave  to  the  trustees  of  the 
Quaker  society  of  Contentnea,  to  be  held  in  a  kind  of 
guardianship,  to  be  kept  at  work  but  to  receive  the  profits 
of  his  labor,  and  ultimately  to  be  free  when  his  freedom 
could  be  effected  by  the  laws  of  the  State.  In  1827  the 
matter  was  before  the  Supreme  Court.  It  was  in  evidence 
that  nothing  was  said  about  sending  the  slave  out  of  the 
State  when  he  should  be  freed.  On  the  contrary  it  seemed 
to  be  the  purpose  of  the  parties  to  keep  him  in  the  State 
till  free,  and  then  to  let  him  go  where  he  would.  The 
opinion  was  by  Taylor,  Chief  Justice.  He  declared  that  the 
practice  of  the  Quakers  was  emancipation  in  everything  but 
name.  By  statute  a  religious  society  could  hold  property 
for  its  use  only,  and  in  a  conveyance  to  it  for  a  purpose 
forbidden  by  the  policy  of  the  laws  nothing  was  passed. 
That  the  Quakers  did  not  hold  this  slave,  or  other  slaves,  for 
their  own  use  was  shown  by  the  fact  that  slaveholding  was 
against  their  well-known  principles.  Justice  Hall  dissented. 
He  thought  a  religious  society  might  hold  personal 
property  unlimitedly  and  seems  not  to  have  approved  of  the 
law  which  fixed  such  stringent  measures  against  emanci- 
pation.1 Regardless  of  this  decision,  as  will  be  seen  later  on, 
the  Quakers,  as  a  society,  continued  to  hold  slaves  for  pur- 
poses of  emancipation. 

A  case  not  unlike  this  occurred  in  1822,  when  Collier 
Hill  left  slaves  to  four  trustees,  one  of  whom  was  "Richard 

1  Contentnea  Society  vs.  Dickinson,  i  Devereaux,  p.  189. 


349]  Free  Negroes  and  Emancipation.  33 

Graves,  of  the  Methodist  Church,"  with  the  injunction  to 
keep  the  said  slaves  for  such  purposes  as  "they  [the  trus- 
tees] shall  judge  most  for  the  glory  of  God  and  the  good  of 
the  said  slaves."  The  case  came  before  the  Supreme  Court, 
and  the  opinion  declared  that  such  a  bequest,  "when  it  could 
be  fairly  collected  from  other  parts  of  the  will  that  the  tes- 
tator did  not  mean  by  the  bequest  any  personal  benefit  to 
the  legatees,  was  held  to  constitute  them  trustees  for  the 
purpose  of  emancipation,"  and  as  such  purpose  was  illegal 
it  was  held  that  the  trustees  take  the  property  in  trust  for 
the  legal  heirs.1 

In  all  these  cases  the  cast-iron  necessity  of  keeping 
slavery  unbendingly  confined  to  its  present  condition,  cut- 
ting off  the  least  tendency  to  amelioration,  is  clearly  seen. 
Slavery  absolute — nothing  short  of  it — and  as  few  free 
negroes  as  possible ;  that  was  the  idea. 

As  time  passed  this  feature  of  the  law  became  harder. 
Most  severe  was  a  case  before  the  Court  in  1849.  The  facts 
were  these.  William  Quarry,  of  Mecklenberg,  conveyed  by 
deed  absolute  to  Peoples  and  others  a  slave  woman  Linney, 
who  was  married  to  a  freeman.  Desiring  that  she  might  con- 
tinue to  live  with  her  husband  he  conveyed  to  the  same 
parties  twelve  acres  of  land  with  a  house  on  it,  presumably 
for  her  use.  No  consideration  was  paid,  although  it 
was  duly  acknowledged.  The  defendants  claimed  that  they 
were  absolute  owners,  that  the  donor  conveyed  the  woman 
and  her  family  to  provide  for  her  comfort  and  to  prevent 
the  division  of  the  family.  They  allowed  the  husband  to 
occupy  the  house  with  his  wife  for  a  certain  rent.  They 
took  her  and  her  children  under  their  personal  care  and 
agreed  to  control  their  conduct.  Yet  the  arrangement 
would  not  do  at  all.  It  was,  said  the  Court,  qualified 
slavery,  and  the  conveyance  was  void.  Lkmey  and  her 
children  were  given  to  the  heirs  of  the  donor,  and,  moreover, 


JHuckaby  vs.  Jones,  2  Hawks,  p.  720.     See  also  Stephens  vs.  Ely, 
I  Devereaux's  Equity,  p.  497. 
3 


34  Slavery  in  the  State  of  North  Carolina.  [350 

the  donees  were  held  liable,  "with  just  deductions,"  for  the 
profits  clue  from  her  services  while  in  their  hands,  and 
because  the  defendants  had  attempted  to  defraud  the  law 
they  were  to  pay  the  costs.1 

Severe  as  these  cases  seem  the  Court  showed  that  within 
the  range  of  the  fact  that  the  free  negro  class  must  not  be 
extended  they  were  disposed  to  be  as  humane  as  possible. 
In  the  case  of  Redding  vs.  Long,2  a  grantor  had  given  slaves 
in  trust  during  his  lifetime  and  directed  the  trustee  to  send 
them  to  Liberia  after  the  grantor's  death,  if  they  wanted  to 
go.  The  Court  declared  that  this  will  was  not  against  the 
spirit  of  the  laws.  "Though  slaves  have  no  capacity  to  make 
contracts,"  said  the  Court,  "yet  they  have  both  mental  and 
moral  capacity  to  make  election  between  remaining  here 
and  being  slaves,  and  leaving  the  State  and  being  free." 

Free  Negroes. — Slaveholders  disliked  and  feared  free 
negroes  because  they  demoralized  the  quiet  conduct  of  the 
slaves.  These  negroes  were  under  no  direct  control  of  the 
white  man.  They  might  aid  the  slaves  in  planning  a  revolt, 
in  disposing  of  stolen  property,  in  running  away,  and  in  any 
other  act  of  defiance.  Privilege  after  privilege  was  with- 
drawn from  them.  At  first  they  haa  most  of  the  rights  and 
duties  of  the  poor  white  man ;  they  fought  in  the  Revolu- 
tionary armies,  mustered  in  the  militia,  voted  in  the  elec- 
tions, and  had  the  liberty  to  go  where  they  chose.  At 
length  they  lost  their  right  to  vote;  their  service  in  the 
militia  was  restricted  to  that  of  musicians;  and  the  patrol 
came  more  and  more  to  limit  their  freedom  of  travel.  Taxes 
and  road  duty  alone  of  all  their  functions  of  citizenship 
were  at  last  preserved.  The  story  of  the  appearance  of  these 
progressive  limitations  is  not  a  pleasant  one. 

It  was  in  1787  (chap.  6)  that  the  Assembly  enacted  that 
no  free  negro  should  entertain  a  slave  at  his  house  at  night 
or  on  Sunday,  on  penalty  of  fine.  If  the  fine  was  not  paid 
the  culprit  was  to  be  hired  out  long  enough  to  pay  it.  The 

1  Lemmond  vs.  Peoples,  6  Iredell's  Equity,  p.  137. 
"4  Jones'  Equity,  p.  216, 


351]  Free  Negroes  and  Emancipation.  35 

same  law  forbade  a  free  negro  to  marry  or  to  cohabit  with 
a  slave  without  the  written  consent  of  the  master,  and  in 
1830  (chap.  4,  sec.  3)  such  relations  were  forbidden  even 
though  the  master  gave  his  written  consent,  and  the  penalty 
for  violation  was  thirty-nine  lashes.1  In  1795  (chap.  16) 
free  negroes  who  settled  in  the  State  were  required  to  give 
bond  of  £200  for  their  good  behavior,  in  default  of  which 
they  were  sold  by  the  sheriff  for  the  benefit  of  the  public. 
In  1826  (chap.  13)  a  free  negro  was  forbidden  to  be  on  a 
ship  at  night,  or  on  Sunday,  without  a  pass  from  a  justice 
of  the  peace,  unless,  indeed,  he  were  employed  there;  but 
the  punishment  for  a  violation  of  this  law  fell  on  the  captain 
of  the  ship.  Neither  must  a  free  negro  trade  with  a  slave, 
and  a  free  negro  must  have  a  license  from  the  County  Court 
to  hawk  or  peddle.2 

The  collection  of  fines  from  free  negroes  was  often  diffi- 
cult, and  in  1831  (chap.  13)  the  Legislature  enacted  that 
when  the  Court  had  reason  to  believe  that  a  free  negro 
could  not  pay  the  fine  imposed  upon  him  it  might  direct  that 
he  be  hired  out  to  the  highest  bidder  for  a  time  long  enough 
to  pay  the  fine.  The  bidder  who  bid  the  shortest  time  took 
the  negro.  The  relation  between  hirer  and  hired  was  to  be 
the  same  as  that  between  master  and  apprentice.  A  free 
negro  was  not  to  be  hired  out  in  this  way  for  a  longer  term 
than  five  years.  If  a  longer  term  was  the  lowest  bid  the  fine 
was  to  be  reduced  to  an  amount  which  five  years'  service 
would  satisfy.3  Later  it  was  thought  necessary  to  provide 
that  such  a  free  negro  should  be  well  supplied  with  food, 
clothing,  medicine  and  lodging;  that  he  should  be  kept 
employed  in  some  useful  and  industrious  occupation,  that 
he  should  not  be  taken  from  the  county  during  service,  and 

1  State  vs.  Fore,  i  Iredell,  p.  378. 

2  Laws  of  1830,  chap.  7,  and  1831,  chap.  28. 

'The  constitutionality  of  this  law  was  questioned  but  it  was  upheld 
by  the  Supreme  Court.  See  State  vs.  Oxendine,  I  Devereaux  and 
Battle,  p.  435,  and  State  vs.  Manuel,  4  Devereaux  and  Battle, 
p.  20. 


36  Slavery  in  the  State  of  North  Carolina.  [352 

that  he  should  be  produced  in  Court  at  the  end  of  his  ser- 
vice or  oftener,  if  so  ordered  by  the  Court.1 

In  1826  (chap.  21)  the  relation  of  the  free  negro  to  the 
State  was  pretty  thoroughly  restated  by  law.  With  free 
negroes  were  now  to  be  included  all  persons  of  negro  blood 
to  the  fourth  generation  inclusive,  though  one  ancestor  in 
each  generation  may  have  been  white.2  It  was  declared  that 
no  free  negro  should  move  into  the  State;  and  if  one  did  so 
and  did  not  leave  within  twenty  days  after  being  notified 
of  the  provisions  of  this  law  he  should  be  fined  $500,  or  held 
to  labor  for  ten  years  or  less.  After  paying  such  a  penalty 
he  must  leave  within  thirty  days  or  suffer  a  repetition  of  the 
punishment.  He  who  brought  in  a  free  negro  to  settle  in 
the  State  should  pay  a  fine  of  $5oo.3  Any  able-bodied  free 
negro  "found  spending  his  or  her  time  in  idleness  and  dissi- 
pation, or  having  no  regular  or  honest  employment,"  was 
to  be  arrested  and  made  to  give  bond  for  good  behavior,  in 
default  of  which  he  or  she  was  to  be  hired  out  for  such  a 
term  as  the  court  might  think  "reasonable  and  just  and 
calculated  to  reform  him  or  her  to  habits  of  industry  or 
morality,  not  exceeding  three  years  for  any  one  offense." 
Furthermore  the  Courts  might  bind  out  the  children  of  such 
free  negroes  who  were  not  industriously  and  honestly  em- 
ployed. Persons  hiring  free  negroes  under  this  act  were 
required  to  furnish  them  with  proper  food  and  clothing, 
to  treat  them  humanely,  and  to  teach  them  some  trade  or 
other  useful  employment.  In  the  later  days  of  slavery4  the 
hirer  was  to  give  bond  to  perform  this  duty,  and  on  failure 
he  was  to  pay  the  negro  the  amount  of  the  bond,  and  also  to 
lose  his  services  and  be  liable  for  a  misdemeanor.  A  further 
check  was  placed  on  the  'number  of  free  negroes  in  1830 

1  Revised  Code,  chap.  107,  sec.  77. 

aSee  State  vs.  Dempsy,  9  Iredell,  p.  384. 

3  It  was  under  the  operation  of  this  law  that  Lunsford  Lane  was 
driven  from  the  State.     See  the  author's  "Anti-Slavery  Leaders  of 
North  Carolina,"  p.  60. 

4  Revised  Code,  chap.  107,  sec.  77. 


353]  Free  Negroes  and  Emancipation.  37 

(chap.  14)  when  it  was  provided  that  those  who  were 
willingly  absent  from  the  State  for  more  than  ninety  days 
together  should  not  be  allowed  to  return  to  it.  It  was  a 
capital  offense  without  benefit  of  clergy  for  any  person  of 
color  to  rape  a  white  female.1  By  law  of  1830  (chap.  10, 
sec.  2)  a  free  negro  was  forbidden  to  gamble  with  a  slave, 
or  to  allow  a  slave  to  gamble  in  his  house.  A  further 
restraint  came  in  1840  (chap.  30)  when  a  free  negro  was 
forbidden  to  carry  a  gun  or  other  deadly  weapon  without 
license  from  the  County  Court.2  A  free  negro  was  not 
allowed  to  sell  or  to  give  spirituous  liquor  to  any  person  what- 
ever,3 and  if  a  free  negro  were  charged  with  the  support  of  a 
bastard  child,  the  Court  might  order  him  bound  out  for  such 
a  sum  as  would  maintain  the  child.4  Thus  it  will  be  seen 
that  in  regard  to  his  rights  of  conduct  the  free  negro  was 
reduced  more  and  more  to  the  position  of  the  slave. 

The  legal  status  of  the  free  negro  was  peculiar.  Was  he 
a  freeman,  or  was  he  less  than  a  freeman?  The  former 
he  was  by  logical  intent;  yet  he  was  undoubtedly  denied, 
as  has  just  been  stated,  many  rights  which  mark  the  estate 
of  freemen.  At  any  time  in  the  eighteenth  century,  I  sup- 
pose, there  would  have  been  no  question  about  the  free 
negro  being  equally  a  freeman  with  the  whites.  After  the 
severe  laws  of  the  third  and  fourth  decades  of  the  nineteenth 
century  opinion  changed.  It  was  thus  that  it  was  as  late 
as  1844  that  the  Supreme  Court  undertook  to  fix  the  status 
of  free  negroes.  It  then  declared  that  "free  persons  of  color 
in  this  State  are  not  to  be  considered  as  citizens  in  the 
largest  sense  of  the  term,  or  if  they  are,  they  occupy  such 
a  position  as  justifies  the  Legislature  in  adopting  a  course 
of  policy  in  its  acts  peculiar  to  them,  so  that  they  do  not 
violate  the  great  principles  of  justice  which  lie  at  the  founda- 
tion of  all  law."5  This  position  is  further  illustrated  by  the 
opinion  of  the  Court  in  regard  to  the  free  negro's  right  to 

1  Laws  of  1823,  chap.  1229.         2  State  vs.  Lane,  8  Iredell,  p.  256. 
3  Laws  of  1844,  chap.  86.  *  Revised  Code,  chap.  107,  sec.  76. 

'State  vs.  Newsom,  5  Iredell,  p.  250. 


38  Slavery  in  the  State  of  North  Carolina.  [354 

defend  himself  against  physical  force.  It  was  held  in  1850 
that  insolence  from  a  free  negro  to  a  white  man  would 
excuse  a  battery  in  the  same  manner  and  to  the  same  extent 
as  insolence  from  a  slave.1  In  1859  the  Court  became  more 
explicit.  It  declared  that  a  free  negro  was  in  the  peace  of 
the  State,  and  added  at  length :  "So  while  the  law  will  not 
allow  a  free  negro  to  return  blow  for  blow  and  engage  in  a 
fight  with  a  white  man  under  ordinary  circumstances,  as 
one  white  man  may  do  with  another  or  one  free  negro  with 
another,  he  is  not  deprived  absolutely  of  the  right  of  self- 
defense,  but  a  middle  course  is  adopted"  by  which  he  must 
prove  "that  it  became  necessary  for  him  to  strike  in  order 
to  protect  himself  from  great  bodily  harm  or  grievous 
oppression."2 

More  important  still  is  the  history  of  free  negroes  and 
suffrage.3  The  first  State  Constitution  provided  that  free- 
holders should  vote  for  members  of  the  State  Senate  and 
freemen  for  members  of  the  House  of  Commons.  By  stat- 
ute a  freeholder  was  one  who  owned  in  fee  or  for  life  fifty 
acres  of  land.  When  the  Constitution  began  to  operate  it 
was  a  day  of  strenuous  danger.  Free  negroes  were  enlisted 
in  the  patriot  armies,  and  discharged  the  other  burdens  of 
government.  They  were  admitted  also  to  the  privileges  of 
citizenship.  Negro  freemen  voted  for  members  of  the  Com- 
mons and  when  they  were  freeholders  they  voted  for  mem- 
bers of  the  Senate.  Having  formed  political  alliances  they 
found  protectors  in  their  party  allies,  and,  eventually,  foes  in 
their  party  opponents.  As  they  became  more  and  more  the 
object  of  suspicion  there  was  a  stronger  demand  for  their 
disfranchiseme'nt.  In  some  localities  they  ceased  to  vote  at 
all.  This  was  probably  where  the  political  party  with  which 
they  affiliated  was  in  the  minority.  In  many  com- 
munities they  voted  and  were  protected  by  their  friends. 

1  State  vs.  Jowers,  n  Iredell,  p.  535. 

2  State  vs.  Davis,  7  Jones,  p.  52. 

8 See  the  author's  paper  on  "  Suffrage  in  North  Carolina,"  Report 
of  the  American  Historical  Association,  1895,  pp.  272-3. 


855]  Free  Negroes  and  Emancipation.  39 

Of  course,  where  they  did  not  vote  it  was  through  their  own 
will — whether  it  was  influenced  by  choice  or  by  fear  of  the 
whites.  Unquestionably,  they  were  not  a  desirable  class  of 
voters.  In  Granville  County,  it  is  said,  they  lost  the  favor 
of  the  people  because  they  persistently  voted  for  one  Potter, 
a  demagogue  of  plausible  speech,  who  had  not  the  respect  of 
the  best  whites.  At  length  it  came  to  be  regarded  as  a  blot 
on  a  man's  political  record  to  have  the  support  of  the  free 
negroes.  It  was  not  unusual  for  candidates  to  twit  one 
another  with  such  support  and  for  the  one  to  reply  that  he 
would  give  up  the  negro  vote  if  the  other  would  do  the 
same.1 

In  the  triumph  of  the  pro- slavery  views,  about  1830,  the 
free  negro  was  destined  to  lose  the  franchise.  The  matter 
came  to  a  head  in  the  Constitutional  Convention  of  1835. 
Already  a  law  had  been  passed  to  forbid  the  free  negro  to 
hold  office  in  the  State.  I  do  not  know  just  how  the  act 
which  called  the  Constitutional  Convention  came  to  include 
in  the  objects  of  the  convention  the  consideration  of  the  dis- 
franchisement  of  free  negroes.  Perhaps  it  was  a  compro- 
mise wrung  from  the  men  of  the  West  by  those  of  the  East 
in  order  to  get  popular  representation.  Its  consideration 
was  made  optional.  There  were  many  friends  of  the  black 
man  in  the  convention,  but  the  majority  was  against  him. 
Realizing  their  position  they  tried  to  secure  a  law  which 
would  save  the  franchise  to  the  more  industrious  and  intelli- 
gent of  the  free  negroes.  It  was  therefore  proposed  to 
limit  the  right  to  vote  to  such  of  this  class  as  had  a  freehold 
estate  worth  $250.  The  debate  on  this  proposition  was 
long.  It  was  argued  by  the  affirmative  that  this  would  be 
an  incentive  to  the  thrift  and  good  conduct  of  the  free 
negroes;  that  it  would  make  the  better  men  in  that  class 
friends  of  the  whites  in  case  of  slave  riot;  that  many  free 
negroes  had  fought  in  the  Revolution;  that  they  usually 

1  See  David  Dodge:  "The  Free  Negroes  of  North  Carolina,"  The 
Atlantic,  Jan.,  1886.  David  Dodge  is  O.  W.  Blacknall,  Esq.,  Kit- 
trels,  N.  C. 


40  Slavery  in  the  State  of  North  Carolina.  [356 

voted  for  good  men  when  they  voted,  and  that  if  they  were 
taxed  they  ought  to  vote.  It  was  admitted  that  the  bill  of 
rights  was  intended  to  apply  to  white  men  only ;  but,  it  was 
said,  expediency  demanded  the  present  concession.  It  was 
not  denied  that  the  prejudice  against  these  people  was  justi- 
fied by  the  unworthiness  of  many  of  them ;  but  the  whites 
were -largely  responsible;  for,  it  was  added,  "the  whites  are 
the  principal  corrupters  of  the  morals  of  these  people."  Mr. 
Shober,  of  Surry,  an  extremely  western  county,  was  more 
outspoken.  He  said  that  it  was  sufficient  for  him  that  a 
free  negro  was  a  human  being,  that  he  had  a  will  and  was 
a  free  agent.  If  held  liable  for  taxes  and  other  burdens  he 
ought  to  have  some  privileges.  Said  Mr.  Giles :  "It  was 
charged  that  the  vote  of  the  free  negro  could  be  purchased — 
purchased  by  whom?  Undoubtedly  by  white  men.  The 
Legislature  had  been  remiss  in  its  duty  to  the  free  negroes. 
Instead  of  improving  their  situation  they  appear  to  have 
acted  on  a  principle  of  hostility  toward  them."  The  con- 
vention ought  to  do  something  to  raise  them  from  their 
degradation.  Judge  Gaston  also  spoke  for  the  negro. 
After  Macon  he  was  the  most  distingished  man  in  the  con- 
vention. The  question,  said  he,  was  not  the  giving  of  a 
right  but  the  taking  of  one  away.  He  was  willing  to 
restrict  the  right  of  suffrage ;  but  those  free  negroes  who 
possessed  freeholds  were  honest  men  and  perhaps  Christians 
and  they  should  not  be  politically  excommunicated  on 
account  of  their  color.  "Let  them  know  that  they  are  part 
of  the  body  politic,  and  they  will  feel  an  attachment  to  the 
form  of  government,  and  have  a  fixed  interest  in  the  pros- 
perity of  the  community,  and  will  exercise  an  important 
influence  over  the  slaves." 

On  the  other  hand,  it  was  argued  that  a  free  negro  was 
not  a  citizen,  and  that  if  he  had  ever  voted  it  was  illegally. 
Being  called  freemen  in  the  abstract  did  not  confer  on  them 
the  dignity  of  citizenship.  Fighting  in  the  Revolution  did 
not  make  them  citizens  any  more  than  it  made  citizens  of 
the  slaves,  many  of  whom  fought  in  the  Revolution.  The 


357]  Free  Negroes  and  Emancipation.  41 

lot  of  the  free  negro  was  not  a  hard  one.  "It  far  surpassed 
the  nondescript  situation  of  the  ancient  Helots  and  villeins, 
or  the  ignoble  condition  of  the  oppressed  peasants  of 
Poland."  A  slave  was  not  a  citizen.  When  was  a  freed 
slave  naturalized?  And  until  naturalized  could  he  be  a 
citizen?  Citizens  of  one  State  have  privileges  of  citi- 
zens in  the  other  States,  and  yet  North  Carolina  severely 
restricted  their  coming  to  its  borders,  thus  implying  that 
they  were  not  citizens.  It  was  granted  that  the  better  class 
would  suffer  hardship  in  losing  the  right  of  suffrage,  yet 
the  interest  of  a  few  must  yield  to  the  general  good. 
Although,  it  was  said,  free  negroes  voted  elsewhere  in  the 
State,  yet  the  privilege  was  not  allowed  to  those  in  the  east- 
ern counties,  and  they  had  accepted  the  restriction  "with 
cheerfulness  and  contentment."  The  cold  logic  of  the 
views  of  the  majority  was  stated  by  Mr.  Bryan,  of  Carteret, 
as  follows : 

"This  is,  to  my  mind,  a  nation  of  white  people,  and  the 
enjoyment  of  all  civil  and  social  rights  by  a  distinctive  class 
of  individuals  is  purely  permissive,  and  unless  there  be  a 
perfect  equality  in  every  respect  it  cannot  be  demanded  as  a 
right.  *  *  *  It  may  be  urged  that  this  is  a  harsh  and 
cruel  doctrine,  and  unjust,  and  by  no  means  reciprocal  in 
its  operation.  I  do  not  acknowledge  any  equality  between 
the  \\hite  man  and  the  free  negro  in  the  enjoyment  of  politi- 
cal rights.  The  free  negro  is  a  citizen  of  necessity  and 
must,  as  long  as  he  abides  among  us,  submit  to  the  laws 
which  necessity  and  the  peculiarity  of  his  position  compel  us 
to  adopt." 

Mr.  McQueen,  of  Chatham,  continued  the  argument :  The 
Government  of  North  Carolina  did  not  make  the  negro  a 
slave,  said  he.  It  gave  the  boon  of  freedom,  but  did  that 
carry  the  further  boon  of  citizenship?  "Is  there  any  solid 
ground  for  the  belief  that  a  free  mulatto  can  have  any  per- 
manent interest  with,  and  attachment  to,  this  country?  He 
finds  the  door  of  office  closed  against  him  by  the  bars  and 
bolts  of  public  sentiment;  he  finds  the  circle  of  every 


42  Slavery  in  the  State  of  North  Carolina.  [358 

respectable  society  closed  against  him;  let  him  conduct 
himself  with  as  much  propriety  as  he  may,  he  finds  himself 
suspended  between  two  classes  of  society — the  whites  and 
the  blacks — condemned  by  the  one  and  despised  by  the 
other;  and  when  his  favorite  candidate  in  the  election  pre- 
vails, it  communicates  no  gratification  in  his  breast,  for  the 
candidate  will  be  a  white  man,  and  he  knows  full  well  that 
the  white  man  eyes  him  with  contempt."  More  relentless  still 
was  Mr.  Wilson,  of  Perquimons.  He  said :  "A  white  man 
may  go  to  the  house  of  a  free  black,  maltreat  and  abuse  him, 
and  commit  any  outrage  upon  his  family,  for  all  of  which  the 
law  cannot  reach  him,  unless  some  white  person  saw  the  act 
committed — some  fifty  years  of  experience  having  satisfied 
the  Legislature  that  the  black  man  does  not  possess  sufficient 
intelligence  and  integrity  to  be  intrusted  with  the  important 
privilege  of  giving  evidence  against  a  white  man.  And  after 
all  this  shall  we  invest  him  with  the  more  important  rights  of 
a  freeman?" 

After  the  discussion  had  continued  two  days,  the  matter 
was  carried  against  the  free  negro  by  a  vote  of  65  to  62. 
It  was  the  strongly  slaveholding  East  that  carried  the  vote ; 
for,  of  the  majority,  47  votes  were  eastern  and  18  were  west- 
ern, while  of  the  minority  40  were  western  and  22  eastern. 
The  amendment  to  the  Constitution  as  finally  adopted  read : 
"No  free  negro,  free  mulatto,  or  free  person  of  mixed  blood, 
descended  from  negro  ancestors  to  the  fourth  generation 
inclusive  (though  one  ancestor  of  each  generation  may  have 
been  a  white  person)  shall  vote  for  members  of  the  Senate 
or  House  of  Commons." 

There  were  more  free  negroes  in  North  Carolina  in  1860 
than  in  any  other  State  except  Virginia.  Rigorous  as  they 
were  the  North  Carolina  laws  against  these  people  were 
more  lenient  than  the  laws  of  Virginia  or  of  any  other  State. 
Consequently  many  free  negroes  quietly  crossed  into  the 
former  State  and  settled  there  undisturbed  in  the  northern 
or  southern  counties.  They  took  the  poorest  land.  Usu- 
ally they  rented  a  few  acres;  often  they  bought  a  small 


359]  Free  Negroes  and  Emancipation.  43 

"patch,"  and  on  it  dwelt  in  log  huts  of  the  rudest  construc- 
tion. In  either  case  they  supplemented  their  resources  by 
following  some  simple  trade.  They  were  well-diggers, 
shoemakers,  blacksmiths,  fiddlers,  hucksters,  pedlers,  and 
so  forth.  Besides,  they  were  easily  called  in  to  help  the 
whites  on  occasions  of  need.  There  were  a  very  few  who 
accumulated  money  and  some  of  these  became  slave-owners. 
Although  it  was  against  the  law  for  them  to  come  into  the 
State,  their  arrival  was  tolerated  both  because  the  law  was 
recognized  as  severe  and  because  their  services  were  wanted 
in  the  community.  Many  of  them  had  Indian  blood  in 
their  veins,  and  when  such  was  the  case  they  were  a  little 
distant  towards  the  slaves.  Unambitious,  often  immoral, 
they  were  of  the  least  value  to  society,  which,  indeed,  offered 
them  no  inducement  to  be  better  than  they  were.  They 
usually  were  on  terms  of  friendship  with  that  other  class 
of  incompetents,  the  "poor  whites."  Sometimes  these  two 
classes  lived  on  terms  of  sexual  intimacy.  In  Granville 
County  there  was  a  pretty  well  authenticated  story  of  a  white 
woman  who  had  her  colored  lover  bled  and  drank  some  of 
the  blood  so  that  she  might  swear  she  had  negro  blood  in 
her  and  thus  be  enabled  to  marry  the  object  of  her  affection. 
She  succeeded  in  her  purpose  and  the  couple  lived  to  rear 
a  family  of  children.1  I  have  been  speaking  of  free  negroes 
who  lived  in  the  country  districts.  In  towns  they  fared 
better  and  accumulated  wealth. 

Regardless  of  the  severe  laws  there  were  not  a  few  free 
negroes  who  acquired  wealth  and  consideration.  Of  th's 
class  were  notably  Rev.  John  Chavis,  Lunsford  Lane  and 
John  C.  Stanley.  The  first  of  these  will  be  noticed  in 
another  chapter,  the  second  has  been  treated  by  the  author 
with  much  fulness  elsewhere,2  and  here  I  shall  speak  of  the 
third  only. 


'David  Dodge  [O.  W.  Blacknall]  in  The  Atlantic  Monthly,  Jan., 
1886. 
"'Anti-slavery  Leaders  of  North  Carolina,''  p.  60. 


44  Slavery  in  the  State  of  North  Carolina.  [360 

John  C.  Stanley  was  a  mulatto,  the  son  of  an  African 
born  slave  woman,  who  was  brought  to  Newbern,  N.  C. 
(from  the  West  Indies),  before  the  Revolutionary  War.  He 
\vas  a  barber  by  trade  and  throughout  his  days  of  manhood 
was  known  as  "Barber  Jack."  He  was  a  faithful  servant, 
and  in  1808  he  was  liberated  by  the  General  Assembly  on 
petition  of  Mrs.  Lydia  Stewart,  into  whose  possession  he  had 
come.  He  soon  began  to  acquire  negro  slaves  and  land 
till  at  length  he  had  sixty-four  slaves  and  as  many  more 
bound  free  negroes  working  his  several  plantations.  Says 
Col.  John  D.  Whitford :  "He  was  popular,  too,  with  both 
slave  and  free  negroes  generally,  notwithstanding  he  was  a 
hard  taskmaster.  Yes,  he  worked  all  well  and  fed  and 
clothed  indifferently."1  He  married  a  moor,  a  copper  col- 
ored woman  who  was  not  a  slave.  He  got  his  start  in  the 
barber  business — although  he  made  much  of  his  money  by 
discounting  notes.  Certain  white  men  of  means  who  did 
not  care  to  go  openly  into  the  business  of  sharp  discounting, 
took  him  for  a  partner  and  furnished  the  means.  He  had 
three  sons,  John,  Alexander  and  Charles.  John  became  an 
expert  bookkeeper  and  was  employed  in  that  capacity  by 
a  prominent  firm.  John  C.  Stanley  amassed  a  fortune  sup- 
posed to  be  worth  more  than  $40,000 ;  but  in  his  old  age  he 
lost  much  of  it  by  bad  management.  His  family  held  them- 
selves aloof  from  the  other  negroes  of  the  community.  They 
were  members  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  to  which  Mrs. 
Stewart,  his  former  mistress,  had  belonged.  This  lady  lived 
till  1822,  and  when  old  and  feeble  could  be  seen  on  the 
streets  in  fine  weather  supported  on  the  arm  of  her  faithful 
old  servant — now  fourteen  years  a  freeman.  Thus  she  took 
the  air  and  thus  she  went  to  church  on  Sunday.  When  the 
couple  had  arrived  at  the  church,  John  would  conduct  her  to 

^ee  Raleigh,  N.  C.,  Morning  Post,  Dec.  5,  1897.  Other  facts 
not  mentioned  by  Col.  Whitford  are  from  statements  made  to  the 
writer  by  Maj.  D.  W.  Hurt,  Goldsboro,  N.  C. 


361]  Free  Negroes  and  Emancipation.  45 

her  pew  and  then  leave  her  to  take  his  seat  with  his  own 
family  in  the  place  assigned  to  colored  people. 

Many  of  the  free  negroes  were  in  circumstances  of  inde- 
pendent thrift,  and  from  many  parts  of  the  State  I  have  had 
evidence  that  some  negroes  were  slaveholders.  In  New- 
bern  especially  there  were  a  number  of  such  thrifty  colored 
men.  Notable  among  these  was  John  Good.  He  was  a  son 
of  his  master  and  for  a  long  time  a  slave.  When  the  master 
died,  his  two  surviving  children,  who  were  daughters,  had 
but  little  property  besides  this  boy,  John,  who  was  a  barber. 
John  took  up  the  task  of  supporting  them.  He  boarded  them 
in  good  houses  and  otherwise  provided  for  them  well.  His 
faithfulness  won  him  many  friends  among  the  best  citizens, 
and  when  both  of  his  mistresses  were  married  these  friends 
united  to  persuade  the  owners  to  liberate  him  as  a  reward 
for  his  services.  Unfortunately,  freedom  proved  no  boon. 
He  fell  into  bad  habits,  took  to  drink  and  soon  died.  There 
were  other  thrifty  and  notable  free  negroes  in  the  same 
place,  as,  for  example,  John  Y.  Green,  a  carpenter  and  con- 
tractor ;  Richard  Hazel,  a  blacksmith  of  means  ;  Albert  and 
Freeman  Morris,  described  as  two  "nice  young  men,"  and 
thoroughly  respected,  tailors  by  trade  ;  and  Scipio,  slave  of 
Dr.  Hughes,  who  was  a  blacksmith  and  owner  of  a  livery 
stable.  Another  was  Fellow  Bragg,  a  tailor  who  was  thor- 
oughly conscientious  and  so  good  a  workman  that  promi- 
nent people  were  known  to  move  their  custom  to  the  shops 
at  which  he  was  employed  in  order  that  he  might  work  on 
it.  Most  of  these  men  moved  to  Cincinnati  sooner  or  later. 
What  became  of  them  after  that  I  do  not  know.1  The  con- 
ditions here  recorded  for  Newbern  were  not  unusual  for 
North  Carolina  towns  in  general.  Everywhere  there  were 
usually  a  number  of  prosperous  free  negroes.  Most  of  them 
were  mulattoes,  'not  a  few  of  them  were  set  free  by  their 
fathers  and  thus  they  fell  easily  into  the  life  around  them. 


facts  in  this  paragraph  are  from  Maj.  D.  W.  Hurt,  formerly 
of  Newbern,  but  now  of  Goldsboro,  N.  C. 


46  Slavery  in  the  State  of  North  Carolina.  [362 

This  mulatto  class  was  partly  due  to  the  easy  sexual  rela- 
tions between  the  races.  A  white  man  who  kept  a  negro 
mistress  ordinarily  lost  no  standing  in  society  on  account  of 
it.  The  habit,  though  not  common,  was  not  unusual.  Often 
the  mistress  was  a  slave,  and  thus  there  were  frequent  eman- 
cipations either  by  gift  or  by  purchase  of  liberty,  till  the 
stricter  spirit  of  the  laws  after  1831  checked  it. 


CHAPTER  III. 
RELIGIOUS  LIFE. 

I  have  already  said  that  the  central  idea  of  slavery  in 
North  Carolina  was  a  determination  to  perpetuate  the  insti- 
tution, whatever  the  price,  and  at  the  same  time  a  disposi- 
tion to  make  it  as  gentle  as  possible  for  the  slave,  pro- 
vided that  doing  so  did  not  tend  to  loosen  his  bonds.  This 
same  idea  is  found  in  the  master's  regulation  of  the  religious 
life  of  the  slave.  Without  question  he  was  willing  to  make 
the  slave  a  Christian.  He  was  anxious  to  do  it.  He  spent 
money  with  more  or  less  bountifulness  to  do  it.  This  was 
sometimes  done  by  men  who  were  not  Christians  them- 
selves, but  who  wanted  their  slaves  to  be  Christians  for  the 
purposes  of  discipline ;  but  oftener  it  was  done  out  of  pure 
benevolence,  and  with  a  devout  purpose  to  accomplish  the 
spiritual  welfare  of  the  negro.  Persons  who  have  formed 
their  opinions  of  Southern  society  from  the  popular  works 
of  certain  novelists  are  apt  to  think  of  the  slave-owner  as 
a  fine-bred  gentleman  of  cavalier  instincts  and  patriarchal 
feelings.  Such  an  estimate  is  but  half  true.  There  was  in 
the  South — in  North  Carolina  it  was  very  strong — a  large 
class  of  slave-owners  who  approached  more  nearly  to  the 
English  farmer  type  than  to  the  English  gentleman  type. 
They  were  usually  self-made  men,  of  fair  intelligence,  and 
of  some  education.  They  were  generally  thrifty  and  often 
wealthy.  The  majority  of  them  were  Christians,  mostly 
of  the  Methodist,  Baptist  and  Presbyterian  Churches.  This 
class  of  men  has  received  but  little  attention  from  those  who 
have  written  of  Southern  society,  and  yet  it  was  the  back- 
bone of  that  society.  There  was  little  that  was  ideal  about 
such  men.  They  were  humdrum,  but  they  were  honest, 

47 


48  Slavery  in  the  State  of  North  Carolina.  [364 

pious  and  substantial,  and  they  were  numerous.  Such  peo- 
ple are  to  be  compared,  not  only  in  wealth,  but  in  general 
social  development  as  well,  with  the  upper  farmer  class  in 
the  North  and  West.  I  do  not  mean  to  say  that  they  were 
all  of  the  South.  The  planter  class,  in  the  ordinary  use  of 
the  term,  was  there,  and  it  was  the  governing  class  and  the 
class  that  touched  the  outside  world.  It  went  to  summer 
resorts,  and  to  Congress,  and  to  political  conventions,  and  it 
got  into  novels,  and  sometimes  into  history,  and  it  was  usu- 
ally benignly  patriarchal,  but  the  farmer  class  as  a  class  came 
closer  into  touch  with  the  slave  and  in  a  hundred  ways  soft- 
ened the  harshness  of  an  institution  which  no  one  knew 
how  to  modify  in  law. 

It  was,  indeed,  in  a  harsh  spirit  that  the  law  came  at  last 
to  regulate  the  religious  relations  of  the  slave.  In  the  begin- 
ning, when  the  slaves  were  just  from  barbarism  and  free- 
dom, it  was  thought  best  to  forbid  them  to  have  churches 
of  their  own.  But  as  they  became  more  manageable,  this 
restriction  was  omitted  from  the  law1  and  the  churches 
went  on  with  their  work  among  the  slaves.  A  large  num- 
ber of  negroes  were  converted  and  taken  into  church  mem- 
bership, some  of  the  more  intelligent  negroes  were  taught 
to  read  and  were  licensed  to  preach.  Some  churches  made 
a  specialty  of  work  among  the  slaves.  Often  negro  preach- 
ers held  services  with  their  own  race  and  sometimes  estab- 
lished separate  congregations,  though  the  latter  was  not 
the  rule.  The  advantage  of  this  system  was  that  it  was 
developing  the  negro  into  self-dependence  religiously,  but 
doing  it  under  the  intimate  oversight  of  the  whites  among 
whom  he  was  interspersed.  Never  before  or  since  was  the 
relation  between  the  negro  and  his  white  neighbors  so  aus- 
picious. The  change  came  openly  in  1830,  when  a  law  was 
passed  by  the  General  Assembly  which  destroyed  the  hopes 
of  all  those  who  were  favorable  to  this  movement.  It  was 
enacted  that  no  free  person  or  slave  should  teach  a  slave 

^ee  the  author's  "Slavery  and  Servitude,"  p.  50. 


365]  Religious  Life.  49 

to  read  or  write,  the  use  of  figures  excepted,  or  give  to  a 
slave  any  book  or  pamphlet.1  This  law  was  no  doubt 
intended  to  meet  the  danger  from  the  circulation  of  incen- 
diary literature,  which  was  believed  to  be  imminent;  yet 
it  is  no  less  true  that  it  bore  directly  on  the  slave's  religious 
life.  It  cut  him  off  from  the  reading  of  the  Bible — a  point 
much  insisted  on  by  the  agitators  of  the  North — and  it  fore- 
stalled that  mental  development  which  was  necessary  to 
him  in  comprehending  the  Christian  life.  The  only  argu- 
ment made  for  this  law  was  that  if  a  slave  could  read  he 
would  soon  become  acquainted  with  his  rights.  Caruthers 
thought  it  a  shame  that  a  Christian  people  would  make  such 
arguments.  "How  dare  you,"  he  exclaims,  "by  your 
impious  enactments  doom  millions  of  your  fellow-beings  to 
such  a  gross  and  perpetual  ignorance!"2  A  year  later  a 
severer  blow  fell.  The  Legislature  then  forbade  any  slave 
or  free  person  of  color  to  preach,  exhort,  or  teach  "in  any 
prayer-meeting  or  other  association  for  worship  where 
slaves  of  different  families  are  collected  together"  on  penalty 
of  receiving  not  more  than  thirty-nine  lashes.3  The  result 
was  to  increase  the  responsibility  of  the  churches  of  the 
whites.  They  were  compelled  to  abandon  the  hope  of  see- 
ing the  negro  made  his  own  evangel  and  to  take  on  them- 
selves the  task  of  handing  down  to  the  slaves  religious 
instruction  in  such  a  way  that  it  should  be  comprehended 
by  their  immature  minds  and  should  not  be  too  strongly 
flavored  with  the  bitterness  of  bondage.  With  the  mandate 
of  the  Legislature  the  churches  acquiesced. 

As  to  the  preaching  of  the  dominant  class  to  the  slaves 
it  always  had  one  element  of  disadvantage.  It  seemed  to 
the  negro  to  be  given  with  a  view  to  upholding  slavery.  As 
an  illustration  of  this  I  may  introduce  the  testimony  of 

1  Revised  Statutes,  pp.  209,  578,  and  Revised  Code,  p.  218. 

"See  the  unpublished  manuscript  of  E.  W.  Caruthers's  book  on 
"Slavery,"  p.  396.  It  is  preserved  in  the  library  of  Greensboro 
Female  College,  Greensboro,  N.  C. 

s  Revised  Statutes,  p.  580,  and  Revised  Code,  p.  576. 
4 


50  Slavery  in  the  State  of  North  Carolina.  [366 

Lunsford  Lane.  This  slave  was  the  property  of  a  prominent 
and  highly  esteemed  citizen  of  Raleigh,  N.  C.  He  hired 
his  own  time  and  with  his  father  manufactured  smoking 
tobacco  by  a  secret  process.  His  business  grew  and  at 
length  he  bought  his  own  freedom.  Later,  he  opened  a 
wood  yard,  a  grocery  store  and  kept  teams  for  hauling. 
He  at  last  bought  his  own  home,  and  had  bargained  to  buy 
his  wife  and  children  for  $2500,  when  the  rigors  of  the  law 
were  applied  and  he  was  driven  from  the  State.  He  was 
intelligent  enough  to  get  a  clear  view  of  slavery  from  the 
slave's  standpoint.  He  was  later  a  minister,  and  undoubt- 
edly had  the  confidence  and  esteem  of  some  of  the  leading 
people  of  Raleigh,  among  whom  was  Governor  Morehead. 
He  is  a  competent  witness  for  the  negro.  In  speaking-  of 
the  sermons  from  white  preachers  he  said  that  the  favorite 
texts  were  "Servants,  be  obedient  to  your  masters,"  and 
"he  that  knoweth  his  master's  will  and  doth  it  not  shall 
be  beaten  with  many  stripes."  He  adds,  "Similar  passages 
with  but  few  exceptions  formed  the  basis  of  most  of  the 
public  instruction.  The  first  commandment  was  to  obey 
our  masters,  and  the  second  was  like  unto  it ;  to  labor  as 
faithfully  when  they  or  the  overseers  were  not  watching 
as  when  they  were.  I  will  not  do  them  the  injustice  to  say 
that  connected  with  this  instruction  there  was  not  mingled 
much  that  was  excellent."  All  this  was  natural.  To  be  a 
slave  was  the  fundamental  fact  of  the  negro's  life.  To  be 
a  good  slave  was  to  obey  and  to'  labor.  Not  to  obey  and  not 
to  labor  were,  in  the  master's  eye,  the  fundamental  si'ns  of  a 
slave.  Such  a  condition  was  inherent  in  slavery.  On  the 
other  hand,  many  of  the  more  independent  negroes,  those 
who  in  their  hearts  never  accepted  the  institution  of  slavery, 
were  repelled  from  the  white  man's  religion,  and  thus  the 
support  of  a  very  valuable  portion  ot  the  race  was  lost. 
This  condition  of  affairs  was  not  to  be  entirely  remedied 
by  having  negro  preachers ;  but  it  might  have  been  amelior- 
ated by  it,  and  if,  in  the  long  course  of  time,  the  church 
work  among  the  slaves  could  have  been  done  entirely  by 


367]  Religious  Life.  51 

negro  preachers  acting  under  white  supervision  the  salva- 
tion of  the  slave  would  have  been  very  near  its  accomplish- 
ment. 

As  it  was,  it  is  no  doubt  true  that  many  slaves  were 
reached  by  religious  influences.  Through  the  teachings  of 
the  church  many  were  enabled  to  bend  in  meekness  under 
their  bondage  and  be  content  with  a  hopeless  lot.  There 
are  whites  to  whom  Christianity  is  still  chiefly  a  burden- 
bearing  affair.  Such  quietism  has  a  negative  value.  It 
saves  men  from  discontent  and  society  from  chaos.  But 
it  has  little  positive  and  constructive  value.  The  idea  of 
social  reform  which  is  also  associated  with  the  standard  of 
Christian  duty  was  not  for  the  slave.  Those  very  few  who, 
like  Lunsford  Lane,  did  work  themselves  heroically  to  free- 
dom were  acting  on  principles  not  usually  preached  from 
the  pulpit  in  the  latter  part  of  our  period. 

How  a  slave  looked  at  the  religion  that  was  brought  to 
him  may  be  seen  from  the  following  words  of  Lunsford 
Lane,  who  seems  to  have  been  a  consistent  Christian : 

I  was  permitted  to  attend  church,  and  this  I  esteem  a  great  bless- 
ing. It  was  there  I  received  much  instruction,  which  I  trust  was  a 
great  benefit  to  me.  I  trusted,  too,  that  I  had  experienced  the  renew- 
ing influences  of  divine  grace.  I  looked  upon  myself  as  a  great  sin- 
ner before  God,  and  upon  the  doctrine  of  the  great  atonement, 
through  the  suffering  and  death  of  the  Saviour,  as  a  source  of  continual 
joy  to  my  heart.  After  obtaining  from  my  mistress  a  written  permit, 
a  thing  always  required  in  such  cases,  I  had  been  baptized  and 
received  into  fellowship  with  the  Baptist  denomination.  Thus  in 
religious  matters  I  had  been  indulged  in  the  exercise  of  my  own 
conscience;  this  was  a  favor  not  always  granted  to  slaves.  There 
was  one  hard  doctrine  to  which  we  as  slaves  were  compelled  to  listen, 
which  I  found  difficult  to  receive.  We  were  often  told  by  the  minis- 
ter how  much  we  owed  to  God  for  bringing  us  over  from  the  benighted 
shores  of  Africa  and  permitting  us  to  listen  to  the  sound  of  the  gos- 
pel. In  ignorance  of  any  special  revelation  that  God  had  made  to 
master,  or  to  his  ancestors,  that  my  ancestors  should  be  stolen  and 
enslaved  on  the  soil  of  America  to  accomplish  their  salvation,  I  was 
slow  to  believe  all  my  teachers  enjoined  on  this  subject.  How  sur- 
prising, then,  this  high  moral  end  being  accomplished,  that  no  proc- 
lamation of  emancipation  had  before  this  been  made  !  Many  of  us 


52  Slavery  in  the  State  of  North  Carolina.  [368 

were  as  highly  civilized  as  some  of  our  masters,  and,  as  to  piety,  in  many 
instances  their  superiors.  I  was  rather  disposed  to  believe  that  God  had 
originally  granted  me  temporal  freedom,  which  wicked  men  had 
forcibly  taken  from  me — which  now  I  had  been  compelled  to  pur- 
chase at  great  cost.  *  *  *  There  was  one  very  kind-hearted  cler- 
gyman whom  I  used  often  to  hear;  he  was  very  popular  with  the  col- 
ored people.  But  after  he  had  preached  a  sermon  to  us  in  which  he 
urged  from  the  Bible  that  it  was  the  will  of  Heaven  from  all  eternity 
that  we  should  be  slaves,  and  our  masters  be  our  owners,  many  of 
us  left  him,  considering,  like  the  doubting  disciple  of  old,  "This  is  a 
hard  saying,  who  can  hear  it  P"1 

Dr.  Caruthers,  whose  long  pastorate  in  Guilford  ought 
to  have  given  him  good  grounds  for  speaking,  said  that 
slaves  knew  little  of  the  Bible,  except  as  they  picked  it  up 
from  others,  "and  that  little,"  he  adds,  "they  don't  know  half 
their  time  whether  to  believe  or  disbelieve.  It  is  often  said 
that  many  of  them  become  very  pious  people,  and  although 
we  can't  know  the  heart,  charity  would  lead  us  to  believe  or 
hope  so ;  but  no  thanks  to  slavery  or  the  slave  laws."  It  was 
the  Lord's  work.  The  negroes  who  were  spoken  of  as  pious, 
said  he,  did  not  have  "those  enlarged  views  or  that  expan- 
sion of  soul  which  is  always  imparted  by  scriptural  and 
enlightened  sentiments  of  immortality."2 

All  the  churches  of  North  Carolina,  so  far  as  I  have  been 
able  to  ascertain,  received  freely  negro  members.  Every 
church  had  its  space  reserved  for  negroes.  It  was  almost 
invariably  in  the  gallery,  if  there  was  one,  or  in  the  back  of 
the  church,  if  there  was  no  gallery.  In  the  ceremony  of  the 
Lord's  Supper,  after  the  whites  had  partaken,  the  sacra- 
ment was  administered  to  the  negro  members.  In  many 
churches,  particularly  of  Methodist  and  Baptist  denomina- 
tions, which  had  often  many  colored  communicants,  there 
was  a  special  service  in  the  afternoon  by  the  white  preacher 
for  the  negroes.  It  was  to  these  two  churches  that  most  of 
the  negroes  joined  themselves,  although  there  were  some  in 
each  of  the  other  leading  bodies.  There  was  much  reason 

1  See  Hawkins'  "Memoir  of  Lunsford  Lane,"  64-66. 
2 See  manuscript  book  on  "Slavery,"  p.  294. 


369]  Religious  Life.  53 

for  this.  These  two  churches  in  North  Carolina  were 
organized  for  the  masses.  Their  doctrines  were  easily  com- 
prehended and  emotional ;  and  the  negro  is  a  creature  of 
emotions.  Moreover  these  bodies  made  special  efforts  to 
reach  the  negroes.  They  went  among  the  large  slave  plan- 
tations as  missionaries.  Other  denominations  paid  more 
attention  to  household  slaves.  In  not  a  few  cases  Meth- 
odism began  with  negro  congregations  and  in  at  least  one 
place  it  was  introduced  by  a  negro  preacher.  But  true  as  it 
was  that  the  Methodists  and  Baptists  attracted  the  negroes 
more  strongly,  it  was  perhaps  equally  true  that  the  Quakers, 
in  proportion  to  their  own  numbers,  were  more  closely 
intimate  with  the  negroes  than  any  other  religious  body 
in  the  State.  Of  this  more  will  be  said  later  on.  Let  us 
now  consider  the  Methodists  and  the  slave. 

In  the  eighteenth  century  the  record  of  the  Methodists 
was  clearly  against  slavery.  John  Wesley  himself  said  that 
the  slave  trade  was  the  sum  of  all  villainies,  although  White- 
field  was  not  opposed  to  it.  The  anti-slavery  sentiment 
was  strongest  in  the  Northern  Conferences,  although  it  was 
not  unknown  in  the  Southern.  As  early  as  1780  the  Con- 
ference of  all  the  Church  declared :  "Slavery  is  contrary  to 
the  laws  of  God,  man  and  nature  and  hurtful  to  society,  con- 
trary to  the  dictates  of  conscience  and  pure  religion,  and 
doing  that  which  we  would  not  that  others  should  do  to  us 
and  ours."1  In  1784  the  Conference  resolved  to  expel  from 
membership  those  who  bought  and  sold  slaves.2  This  step 
was  calculated  to  arouse  much  opposition  in  the  South 
among  the  laymen,  even  if  the  preachers  had  favored  it. 
It  occasioned  much  criticism  and  aroused  much  feeling  in 
both  Virginia  and  the  two  Carolmas.  In  the  spring  of  1875, 
Dr.  Coke  arrived  in  America.  He  preached  strongly 
against  slavery  and  got  the  Virginia  Conference  to  petition 
the  Legislature  for  gradual  emancipation.  This  made  him 
very  unpopular,  so  much  so  that  he  barely  escaped  bodily 
violence.  The  slaveholders  now  withdrew  their  slaves  from 

1  Conference  Minutes,  p.  25.  ''Ibid.,  pp.  47-48. 


54  Slavery  in  the  State  of  North  Carolina.  [370 

contact  with  Methodist  preachers.1  The  Conference  of 
1785  thought  it  prudent  to  rescind  its  former  action,  but 
was  particular  to  add :  "N.  B. — We  do  hold  in  the  deepest 
abhorrence  the  practice  of  slavery,  and  shall  not  cease  to 
seek  its  destruction  by  all  wise  and  prudent  means."2  So 
far  as  an  open  declaration  for  emancipation  is  concerned, 
the  Conference  was  quiet  for  some  time;  but  in  1795  it 
showed  its  concern  in  the  negro's  welfare  by  setting  apart  a 
fast  day  "to  lament  the  deep-rooted  vassalage  that  still 
reigneth  in  many  parts  of  this  free  and  independent  United 
States,"  and  it  added:  "We  feel  gratified  that  many  thous- 
ands of  these  poor  people  are  free  and  pious."3 

As  the  Church  became  strong  enough  to  organize  Con- 
ferences, in  the  various  sections  the  question  of  the  existence 
of  slavery  was  referred  to  these  bodies  and  thus  localized  to 
an  extent.  But  one  particular  question  that  concerned  all 
was  the  propriety  of  allowing  a  preacher  to  hold  slaves.  As 
early  as  1/83  the  Conference  forbade  a  preacher  to  own 
slaves  in  a  State  where  it  was  legal  to  free  them.4  Much  dis- 
cussion grew  up  over  this  matter  early  in  the  present  century. 
Finally  it  was  settled  on  the  lines  earlier  adopted.  It  was 
agreed  in  1816  that  no  slaveholder  should  hold  office  in 
States  which  allowed  emancipation  and  subsequent  resi- 
dence of  the  liberated  negro.  Here  was  a  distinct  compro- 
mise fixed  on  the  principle  of  sectional  conditions,  the  prin- 
ciple which  four  years  later  the  Missouri  compromise 
followed  in  the  broader  sphere  of  politics.5  The  Church 
continued  the  former  strong  declaration  against  slavery  in 
the  abstract,  a  declaration  which,  it  was  likely,  was  supported 
by  Southern  preachers.  It  wras  on  the  compromise  of  1816 
that  the  fight  which  led  to  separation  in  1844  was  made. 

1Drew:  "Life  of  Dr.  Coke,"  pp.  132-139. 
*  Conference  Minutes,  p.  55. 
3fbid.t  pp.  163-164. 

*Ibid.,  p.  41,  and  the  Discipline  of  1821,  p.  69. 

5See  the  Discipline  of  1817  and  Redpath's  "Organization  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  South,"  p.  10. 


371]  Religious  Life.  55 

The  occasion  was  the  censure  voted  against  Bishop 
Andrew  because  he  had  married  in  Georgia  a  woman  who 
owned  slaves.  The  Southern  organization  which  was  now 
formed  continued  its  protest  against  slavery.  The  first 
edition  of  its  Discipline,  1846,  said  in  the  words  of  the 
older  Discipline :  "We  declare  that  we  are  as  much  as  ever 
convinced  of  the  great  evil  of  slavery.  Therefore,  no  slave- 
holder shall  be  eligible  to  any  official  position  in  our  Church 
hereafter  where  the  Laws  of  the  State  in  which  he  lives  will 
admit  of  emancipation  and  permit  the  liberated  slave  to 
enjoy  freedom.  When  any  traveling  preacher  becomes  an 
owner  of  a  slave  or  slaves,  by  any  means,  he  shall  forfeit 
his  ministerial  character  in  our  Church,  unless  he  execute, 
if  it  be  practicable,  a  legal  emancipation  of  such  slaves,  con- 
formable to  the  laws  of  the  State  in  which  he  lives."  Fur- 
thermore, preachers  were  to  enforce  prudently  on  their  mem- 
bers the  duty  of  teaching  slaves  to  read  the  Bible  and  to 
attend  church  services.  Colored  preachers  and  officials 
were  guaranteed  the  privileges  of  their  official  relation 
"where  the  usages  of  the  country  do  not  forbid  it."  Of  all 
of  these  ameliorating  conditions  to  the  slave  but  one  was 
applicable  in  North  Carolina;  for  here  he  could  not  be 
legally  emancipated  and  remain  in  the  State,  nor  could  he 
be  allowed  to  preach  or  be  taught  to  read  the  Bible.  It 
only  remained  for  him  to  aspire  to  be  s6me  church  official 
lower  than  a  preacher.  The  original  strong  desire  to  chris- 
tianize the  negro,  which  the  Methodists  never  forsook,  was 
clearly  bound  and  held  in  restraint  in  conformity  to  the 
newer  spirit  of  harshness  that,  as  has  already  been  said, 
seized  the  State  Legislature  about  1830. 

The  labors  of  the  Methodists  among  the  slaves  began  in 
the  very  first  days  of  Methodism  in  the  State.  The  General 
Conference  in  1787*  urged  the  preachers  to  labor  among  the 
slaves,  to  receive  into  full  membership  those  that  seemed 


1  See  Minutes  of  Conference,  p.   67.     The  Methodist  Church  in 
America  dates  from  1784. 


56  Slavery  in  the  State  of  North  Carolina.  [372 

worthy,  and  "to  exercise  the  whole  Methodist  Discipline 
among  them."  How  well  these  efforts  prospered  may  be 
seen  from  the  following  figures :  In  1787  there  were  in 
North  Carolina1  5017  white  and  492  colored  members ;  in 

1788  there  were  5263  white  and  775   black  members;  in 

1789  there  were  6644  whites  and  1139  blacks;  in  1790  there 
were  7518  whites  to  1749  blacks;   in  1795  there  were  8414 
whites  to  1719  blacks;    in  1800  there  6363  whites  to  2108 
blacks ;  in  1805  there  were  9385  whites  to  2394  blacks ;   in 
1810  there  were  13,535  whites  to  4724  blacks;  in  1815  there 
were  14,283  whites  to  5165  blacks;  in  1820  there  were  13,179 
whites  to  5933  blacks;  in  1825  there  were  15,421  whites  to 
7292  blacks;    in   1830  there  were   19,228  whites  to   10,182 
blacks;    in  1835  there  were  27,539  whites  to  8766  blacks, 
and  in  1839,  which  is  the  last  year  for  which  I  have  been 
able  to  obtain  the  figures,  there  were  26,405  whites  to  9302 
blacks.     Here  was  a  rapid  proportional  gain  of  the  blacks 
over  the  whites.     In  1787  there  were  not  10  per  cent,  as 
many  black  as  white  members ;  i'n  1839  there  were  35  per 
cent,  as  many.     The  membership  for  each  race  varied  nota- 
bly, but  the  variations  were  wider  with  the  negro  race. 
This  indicates,  it  must  be  supposed,  the  more  emotional 
nature  of  the  negro.     A  wave  of  revival  feeling  which  would 
sweep  over  the  country  would  swell  the  roll  of  membership 
and  a  few  years  of  coolness  would  contract  it. 

Although  there  were  negro  Methodists  in  most  sections 
of  the  State,  they  were  most  numerous  in  the  eastern  coun- 
ties. In  this  section  the  Methodists  often  began  their  work 
with  an  appeal  to  the  slaves — "negro  churches,"  their  meet- 
ing houses  were  often  called  by  the  more  aristocratic 
denominations.  An  illustration  is  Wilmington.  Here 
William  Meredith,  a  Methodist  preacher,  arrived  at  the 
beginning  of  this  century.  He  began  to  work  among  the 

1  The  estimates  are  based  on  reports  in  the  Minutes.  It  is  doubtful 
whether  some  charges  near  the  State  boundaries  were  in  North  Caro- 
lina or  out  of  it.  Therefore,  the  figures  may  not  be  absolutely  cor- 
rect, but  for  purposes  of  comparison  they  are  adequate. 


373] 


Religious  Life. 


57 


slaves.  He  bought  a  lot,  and  through  the  penny  collection 
from  the  blacks  and  the  scanty  contributions  of  the  few 
poorer  whites  who  had  joined  with  him,  a  building  was 
completed.  This  was  the  beginning  of  Methodists  in  the 
town.  Hither  came  Bishop  Francis  Asbury  in  1807  and 
preached  twice  in  one  day.  On  the  same  day,  John  Charles, 
a  colored  preacher,  preached  at  sunrise.  The  feeling  of 
friendship  for  him  seems  to  have  been  great  and  the  good 
Bishop  writes  in  his  journal  that  it  was  "a  high  day  on 
Mount  Zion."  The  attitude  of  the  community  was  not 
always  tolerant  of  this  "negro  church."  There  were  vari- 
ous disturbances,  and  once  the  building  was  wrecked  by 
a  mob.1 

More  striking,  but  not  so  typical,  is  the  story  of  the  plant- 
ing of  Methodism  in  Fayetteville.  Late  in  the  eighteenth 
century,  Fayetteville  had  but  one  church  organization,  the 
Presbyterian,  and  that  had  no  building.  One  day  there 
arrived  in  town  Henry  Evans,  a  full-blooded  free  negro  from 
Virginia,  who  was  moving  to  Charleston,  S.  C,  where  he 
proposed  to  follow  the  trade  of  shoemaking.  He  was  perhaps 
free  born ;  he  was  a  Methodist  and  a  licensed  local  preacher. 
In  Fayetteville  he  observed  that  the  colored  people  "were 
wholly  given  to  profanity  and  lewdness,  never  hearing 
preaching  of  any  denomination."  He  felt  it  his  duty  to  stop 
and  work  among  them.  He  worked  at  his  trade  during  the 
week  and  preached  on  Sunday.  The  whites  became  alarmed 
and  the  Town  Council  ordered  him  to  stop  preaching.  He 
then  met  his  flock  in  the  "sand  hills,"  desolate  places  out- 
side of  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Town  Council.  Fearing  vio- 
lence he  made  his  meetings  secret  and  changed  the  place  of 
meeting  from  Sunday  to  Sunday.  He  was  particular  to 
violate  no  law,  and  to  all  the  whites  he  showed  the  respect 
which  their  sense  of  caste  superiority  demanded.  Public 

1See  "  Early  Methodism  in  Wilmington,"  by  Dr.  A.  M.  Chreitz- 
berg,  in  the  Annual  Publication  of  the  Historical  Society  of  the  N.  C. 
Conference,  1897,  p.  i;  also  Wightman:  "Life  of  Bishop  Capers," 
p.  136. 


58  Slavery  in  the  State  of  North  Carolina.  [874 

opinion  began  to  change,  especially  when  it  was  noticed  that 
slaves  who  had  come  under  his  influence  were  more  docile 
for  it.  Some  prominent  whites,  most  of  whom  were  women, 
became  interested  in  his  cause.  They  attended  his  meet- 
ings and  through  their  influence  public  opinion  was 
reversed.  Then  a  rude  frame  building  was  erected  within 
the  town  limits  and  a  number  of  seats  were  reserved  for  the 
whites,  some  of  whom  became  regular  attendants  at  his 
services.  The  preacher's  reputation  spread.  The  white 
portion  of  the  congregation  increased  till  the  negroes  were 
crowded  out  of  their  seats.  Then  the  boards  were  knocked 
from  the  sides  of  the  house  and  sheds  were  built  on  either 
hand  and  in  these  the  blacks  were  seated.  By  this  time  the 
congregation,  which  had  been  unconnectional  at  first,  had 
been  taken  into  the  regular  Methodist  connection  and  a  reg- 
ular white  preacher  had  been  sent  to  it.  But  the  heroic 
founder  was  not  displaced.  A  room  was  built  for  him  in 
the  rear  of  the  pulpit  and  there  he  lived  till  his  death  in 
1810. 

Of  Henry  Evans,  Bishop  Capers  said:  "I  have  known 
not  many  preachers  who  appeared  more  conversant  with 
the  Scriptures  than  Evans,  or  whose  conversation  was  more 
instructive  as  to  the  things  of  God.  He  seemed  always  deeply 
impressed  with  the  responsibility  of  his  position  *  *  * 
nor  would  he  allow  any  partiality  of  friends  to  induce  him 
to  vary  in  the  least  degree  from  the  lines  of  conduct  or  the 
bearing  which  he  had  prescribed  to  himself  in  this  respect  ; 
never  speaking  to  a  white  man  but  with  his  hat  under  his 
arm,  never  allowing  himself  to  be  seated  in  their  houses  and 
even  confining  himself  to  the  kind  and  manner  of  dress 
proper  for  slaves  in  general,  except  his  plain  black  coat  in 
the  pulpit.  'The  whites  are  kind  and  come  to  hear  me 
preach,'  he  would  say,  'but  I  belong  to  my  own  sort  and 
must  not  spoil  them.'  "  Rare  self-control  before  the  most 
wretched  of  castes !  Henry  Evans  did  much  good,  but  he 
would  have  done  more  good  had  his  spirit  been  untram- 
meled  by  this  sense  of  inferiority. 


375] 


Religious  Life. 


59 


His  last  speech  to  his  people  is  noteworthy.  Directly 
after  the  morning  sermon  for  the  whites  it  was  customary 
to  have  a  sermon  for  the  blacks.  On  the  Sunday  before 
Evans'  death,  as  the  latter  meeting  was  being  held  the  door 
of  his  little  shed  room  opened  and  he  tottered  forward. 
Leaning  on  the  altar  rail  he  said :  "I  have  come  to  say  my 
last  word  to  you.  It  is  this :  None  but  Christ.  Three 
times  I  have  had  my  life  in  jeopardy  for  preaching  the 
gospel  to  you.  Three  times  I  have  broken  the  ice  on  the 
edge  of  the  water  and  swam  across  the  Cape  Fear  to  preach 
the  gospel  to  you,  and  if  in  my  last  hour  I  could  trust  to 
that,  or  anything  but  Christ  crucified,  for  my  salvation,  all 
should  be  lost  and  my  soul  perish  forever."  Of  these  words 
Bishop  Capers  justly  says  that  they  were  worthy  of  St. 
Paul.1 

The  opposition  that  was  encountered  in  Fayetteville  and 
in  Wilmington  had  been  due  to  the  more  active  abolition 
turn  of  the  Church  in  the  North.  In  1785  Dr.  Coke  arrived 
in  America  on  a  visit  to  the  Church.  He  preached  aboli- 
tion and  gave  it  an  impetus  among  the  Methodists  which 
resulted  in  memorials  and  remonstrances  to  the  Legisla- 
ture. Before  this  the  large  slave-owners  had  encouraged 
preaching  to  their  slaves.2  They  now  became  fearful  that 
the  slaves  would  be  incited  to  violence,  and  generally  in  the 
South,  Methodist  ministers  were  forbidden  access  to  the 
slaves.  It  took  some  time  to  live  down  this  unfavorable 
impression  and  it  was  only  when  it  was  seen  that  the  South- 
ern preachers  did  not  approve  of  the  interference  with  the 
agitation  against  negro  slavery  that  public  sentiment  came 
around.  There  was  the  most  urgent  need  for  such  preach- 
ing. Of  the  negroes  around  Wilmington,  Bishop  Capers 
says :  "A  numerous  population  of  this  class  in  that  town 
and  vicinity  were  as  destitute  of  any  public  instruction  (or, 
probably,  instruction  of  any  kind  as  to  spiritual  things)  as 
if  they  had  not  been  believed  to  be  men  at  all,  and  their 

1Wightman:  "Life  of  Bishop  Capers,"  pp.  124-129. 
"Drew:   "Life  of  Dr.  Coke,"  pp.  132-139. 


60  Slavery  in  the  State  of  North  Carolina.  [376 

morals  were  as  depraved  as,  with  such  a  destitution  of  the 
gospel  among  them,  might  have  been  expected."  To  this 
state  of  things  the  masters  were  indifferent;  for,  adds  the 
Bishop,  "it  seems  not  to  have  been  considered  that  such  a 
state  of  things  might  furnish  motives  sufficient  to  induce 
pure-minded  men  to  engage,  at  great  inconvenience  or  even 
personal  hazard,  in  the  work  of  reforming  them.  Such 
work,  on  the  other  hand,  seems  to  have  been  regarded  as 
unnecessary,  if  not  unreasonable.  Conscience  was  not 
believed  to  be  concerned  in  it.  "*  And  yet  when  conveyed 
the  negroes  made  good  Christians.  Says  the  same  author- 
ity :  "I  believe  I  have  never  served  a  more  Christian-hearted 
people."  The  preacher  had  a  great  influence  over  them. 
Church  trials  were  rare  among  them  and  the  numbers 
increased  constantly.  They  were  faithful  in  giving  to  the 
church.  The  pastor's  salary  at  Wilmington  was  derived 
almost  wholly  from  their  scant  resources ;  for  the  few  white 
members  were  very  poor.  They  were  attached  to  their 
preacher,  as  many  a  pound  cake  or  warm  pair  of  knit  socks 
or  gloves  from  their  hands  testified. 

Sometimes  a  congregation  outgrew  in  dignity  the  hum- 
bler persons  who  had  at  first  constituted  its  chief  elements. 
Such  was  the  case  at  Raleigh.  Here  there  were  at  first  a 
large  number  of  colored  members,  and  when  the  church 
building  was  erected  they  contributed  their  part.  They  were 
given  seats  in  the  gallery.  At  length  there  was  an  oppor- 
tunity to  buy  a  church  which  might  be  turned  over  solely 
to  the  negroes.  Both  whites  and  blacks  worked  with  their 
might  to  get  the  necessary  money.  When  it  was  at  length 
secured,  there  was  a  two-fold  rejoicing;  by  the  negroes 
because  they  had  a  building  of  their  own,  by  the  whites 
because  the  negroes  were  out  of  the  white  man's  church. 
This  negro  church  now  became  a  mission  and  a  white 
preacher  was  assigned  to  it  by  the  Conference.  Usually 
an  old  preacher  of  kind  disposition  and  good  judgment  was 
sent  to  them.  They  were  still  under  the  oversight  of  the  white 

1Wightman:  "  Life  of  Bishop  Capers,"  p.  163. 


377]  Religious  Life.  61 

congregation  from  which  they  drew  for  Sunday  school 
teachers  and  other  church  workers. 

The  Baptists  were  early  in  North  Carolina,  but  until  the 
establishment  of  the  Missionary  Baptist  Church  in  1830 
they  were  hardly  as  zealous  for  converting  the  unsaved  as 
later.  I  have  not  found  evidence  that  they  began  by  work- 
ing up  congregations  among  the  slaves  as  did  the  Meth- 
odists in  some  places,  but  from  the  first  they  took  great 
care  to  bring  under  religious  influence  the  slaves  of  their 
own  members  and  through  these  the  negroes  generally 
came  to  be  reached  at  length.  The  records  of  Sandy  Run 
Church,  in  Bertie  County,  as  early  as  1773,  show  that  there 
were  negro  preachers  for  the  negro  members,  and  that  these 
were  instructed  not  to  hold  services  at  the  time  of  the  regular 
meeting  of  the  whole  church,  at  which  it  was  designed  that 
the  slaves  might  also  be  present.  Both  colored  preachers 
and  colored  members  were  under  the  control  of  the  white 
congregation.  They  had  no  voice  in  general  church  affairs, 
but  would  be  heard  in  church  meeting  in  cases  which 
related  to  their  own  race.  There  were  in  some  eastern  sec- 
tions colored  deacons  who  were  given  charge  of  the  colored 
members  and  who  made  report  from  time  to  time  to  the 
church  meeting.1 

It  has  been  found  impossible  to  get  an  estimate  of  the 
number  of  negroes  in  the  Baptist  Church  in  North  Carolina. 
Here  the  congregational  idea  was  strong,  the  reports  to  the 
associations  were  not  very  full  and  do  not  always  show  the 
number  of  members.  In  1830  the  Baptist  State  Conven- 
tion was  formed,  and  from  that  time  the  minutes  are  pub- 
lished for  the  Missionary  Baptist  Church  in  North  Carolina, 
but  in  the  few  years  for  which  the  number  of  members  are 
reported,  there  is  no  distinction  made  between  blacks  and 
whites.  It  is  only  in  the  Chowan  Association  that  I  have 
had  a  glimpse  of  numbers.  Here  there  were  in  1843,  4575 
white  to  1228  black  members;  in  1844,  3241  whites  to 


many  of  the  facts  here  presented  I  am  indebted  to  Dr.  J.  D. 
Huff  ham,  of  Henderson,  N.  C. 


62  Slavery  in  the  State  of  North  Carolina.  [378 

1160  blacks;  in  1848,  4619  whites  to  1541  blacks;  in  1850, 
4668  whites  to  1476  blacks;  in  1855,  6960  whites  to  2545 
blacks,  and  in  1860,  7539  whites  to  3043  blacks.  This  pro- 
portion was  strong,  but  it  must  be  remembered  that  the 
Chowan  Association  lay  in  the  East,  and  that  it  was  in  a 
region  which  was  strong  in  Baptist  faith.  It  was  not  repre- 
sentative of  the  denomination  on  this  question. 

The  care  of  the  Church  over  the  life  of  the  slave  was  com- 
mendably  faithful,  especially  over  the  relation  of  master  and 
slave.  As  early  as  1778  it  was  decided  that  a  marriage 
between  slaves  ought  to  be  respected,  even  though  it  was 
against  the  law  of  the  land,  and  that  any  member  who  broke 
the  marriage  vows  of  servants  ought  to  be  denied  fellow- 
ship.1 In  1783  it  was  declared  by  a  meeting  in  the  Sandy 
Creek  Association  that  a  master  should  give  his  servants 
liberty  to  attend  family  prayers  in  his  house,  that  he  should 
exhort  them  to  attend,  but  not  use  force.2  How  this  duty 
was  fulfilled  may  be  seen  from  the  memoir  of  Capt.  John 
Freeman,  a  prominent  Baptist  of  Chowan  County,  who 
died  in  1794.  It  is  said  of  him  that  although  he  had  many 
slaves  "his  lenity  towards  them  was  very  remarkable.  If 
any  of  them  transgressed,  his  general  method  to  chastise 
them  was  to  expose  their  faults  before  the  rest  of  the  ser- 
vants and  the  whole  family  when  they  were  at  family  wor- 
ship in  the  morning,  who,  when  assembled  at  morning 
prayer,  would  talk  to  them,  exhort  and  rebuke  them  so 
sharply  for  their  faults  that  he  made  others  fear.  *  *  * 
He  was  so  very  affected  for  the  spiritual  welfare  of  his  fam- 
ily that  often  he  seemed  almost  convulsed,  and  this  extraor- 
dinary zeal  was  not  the  impulse  of  a  moment,  but  his  con- 
stant practice  for  seventeen  years."3 

The  above  statements  apply  to  the  Baptist  body  before 
the  separation  of  the  Missionary  Baptists  from  it.  For  a 
view  of  the  attitude  of  the  latter  toward  slavery,  the  best 

1  Biggs:  "  History  of  Kehuckee  Association,"  p.  47. 
2Purefoy:  "History  of  Sandy  Creek  Association,"  p.  60. 
'Biggs:  "History  of  the  Kehuckee  Association,"  pp.  95-96. 


379]  Religious  Life,  63 

source  at  hand  is  Purefoy's  "History  of  the  Sandy  Creek 
Association."  Here  it  is  seen  that  the  question  of  a  valid 
marriage  between  blacks  was  still  unsettled.  The  Associa- 
tion was  asked  in  1805  to  settle  it.1  After  three  years'  post- 
ponement it  was  answered  that  such  a  marriage  should  be 
valid,  "when  they  come  together  in  their  former  and  general 
custom,  having  no  [other]  companion."  Rev.  Purefoy, 
commenting  on  this,  says2  owners  should  endeavor  to  keep 
married  slaves  from  being  separated,  even  if  they  put  them- 
selves to  some  inconvenience  in  buying,  selling,  or  exchang- 
ing them. 

To  the  buying  and  selling  of  slaves  for  profit  Baptists  in 
both  East  and  West  were  opposed.  In  1818  the  Chowan 
Association  was  asked  if  a  Christian  could  consistently 
buy  slaves  in  order  to  sell  them  to  speculators.  The  answer 
was  clear :  "We  believe  that  such  practice  is  at  war  with  the 
spirit  of  the  gospel  and  shocking  to  all  the  tender  feelings 
of  our  nature.  We  answer  No."3  In  1835  Sandy  Creek 
Association  spoke  still  more  emphatically.  It  said : 
"WHEREAS,  We  believe  it  inconsistent  with  the  spirit  of  the 
gospel  of  Christ  for  a  Christian  to  buy  or  sell  negroes  for  the 
purpose  of  speculation  or  merchandise  for  gain.  Resolved, 
therefore,  that  this  association  advise  the  churches  of  which 
it  is  composed  to  exclude  members  who  will  not  abandon 
the  practice  after  the  first  and  second  admonition."4  When 
in  1847  the  Association  was  asked  if  it  was  agreeable  to  the 
gospel  for  Baptists  to  buy  and  sell  human  beings  or  to  keep 
them  in  bondage  for  life,  the  only  answer  vouchsafed  was 
to  refer  the  interrogators  to  the  minutes  of  1835.  The 
slavery  dispute  was  then  well-nigh  in  its  stage  of  highest 
passion,  and  it  is  not  unlikely  that  the  Church  authorities 
did  not  like  to  take  a  more  definite  position  on  either  the 
first  or  second  part  of  the  query. 

1Purefoy:  "History  of  Sandy  Creek  Association,"  p.  76. 
*Ibid.,  pp.  93-94. 

'"Minutes  of  the  Chowan  Baptist  Association,"  1818,  p.  7. 
4Purefoy:  "Sandy  Creek  Association,"  pp.  163-164. 


64  Slavery  in  the  State  of  North  Carolina.  [380 

The  Baptists,  like  the  Methodists,  early  in  the  century  had 
negro  preachers,  most  notable  of  whom  was  Ralph  Free- 
man. Ralph  was  a  slave  in  Anson  County  in  the  neighbor- 
hood of  Rock  River  Church.  Soon  after  his  conversion  he 
felt  an  impulse  to  preach,  and  early  in  this  century  he  was 
licensed  by  his  church  for  that  purpose.  Soon  afterwards 
he  was  ordained  to  the  regular  ministry.  He  did  not  have 
specific  charges,  but  traveled  and  preached  through  his  own 
and  the  adjoining  counties.  Says  Rev.  Purefoy:  "He 
became  a  good  reader  and  was  well  versed  in  the  Scripture. 
He  was  considered  an  able  preacher  and  was  frequently 
called  upon  to  preach  on  funeral  occasions,  and  was 
appointed  to  preach  on  Sabbath  at  Association,  and  fre- 
quently administered  the  ordinance  of  baptism  and  the 
Lord's  Supper.  He  was  of  common  size,  was  perfectly 
black,  with  a  smiling  countenance,  especially  in  the  pulpit 
while  speaking.  He  was  very  humble  in  his  appearance  at 
all  times,  and  especially  when  conducting  religious  services. 
Great  personal  respect  was  also  shown  him  by  the  brethren 
whom  he  visited  in  his  preaching  excursions."  Rev.  Joseph 
Magee,  a  white  Baptist  minister,  became  much  attached  to 
Ralph.  They  used  to  travel  and  preach  together  and  after 
the  fashion  of  the  times  it  was  agreed  between  them  that  the 
survivor  should  preach  the  funeral  sermon  of  the  one  who 
died  first.  This  task  fell  to  Ralph.  Although  his  friend 
had  moved  to  the  West,  the  colored  preacher  was  sent  for  all 
the  way  from  North  Carolina  to  come  and  fulfil  the  promise 
made  years  earlier.  Ralph  complied  with  great  success  and 
before  a  large  audience.  When  the  Baptists  divided  on  the 
question  of  missions,  Ralph  sided  with  the  anti-mission 
party,  and  so  fell  into  disfavor  with  the  others.  This  he 
regretted,  but  a  greater  blow,  which  also  fell  about  the  same 
time,  was  the  statute  which  forbade  negroes  to  preach.  He 
was  greatly  mortified,  but  submitted,  and  with  that  passes 
from  our  notice. 

In  proportion  to  their  strength  the  Quakers  did  more  for 
the  negroes  than  any  other  religious  body  in  North  Caro- 


381]  Religious  Life.  65 

lina.  They  did  not  have  very  many  colored  members,  but 
before  the  Revolution  they  set  themselves  to  free  those  they 
did  have ;  and  they  did  not  stop  until  the  process  was 
accomplished.  The  Yearly  Meeting  of  the  very  first  year 
of  the  war,  1776,  appointed  a  committee  to  go  about  and  aid 
Friends  to  free  their  slaves.  This  committee  was  expected 
to  act  in  co-operation  with  the  various  monthly  meetings. 
Thus  a  considerable  number  were  liberated  in  the  following- 
year.  The  committee  reported  that  they  found  among  the 
Friends  a  great  willingness  to  forward  the  work.  But  they 
had  acted  contrary  to  the  law  of  emancipation  which 
required  that  slaves  should  be  freed  for  meritorious  conduct 
only.  Forty  of  those  thus  emancipated  were  taken  up  and 
sold  into  slavery  ag-ain.  The  Quakers  complained  that  this 
was  done  under  a  law  passed  in  1777,  after  the  slaves  were 
liberated.  At  considerable  expense  they  fought  the  matter 
through  County  and  Superior  Courts  and  won  the  verdict ; 
but  the  Assembly  was  then  appealed  to  and  in  1779  it  passed 
a  law  confirming  the  sales  of  these  negroes  and  directing 
that  all  other  negroes  similarly  freed  should  be  sold  into 
slavery  in  the  same  manner  as  if  they  had  been  freed  after 
the  passage  of  the  law  of  1777.  The  reason  for  this  extra- 
ordinary procedure  was  no  doubt  the  law  of  1741,  which 
was  held  to  be  still  in  force.  The  Friends,  however,  were 
not  satisfied.  They  appealed  to  the  Assembly.  They  based 
their  theory  on  the  principle  "that  no  law,  moral  or  divine, 
has  given  us  a  right  to,  or  property  in,  any  of  our  fellovv 
creatures  any  longer  than  they  are  in  a  state  of  minority." 
They  appealed  to  the  statement  of  the  rights  of  man  in  the 
Declaration  of  Independence,  and  showed  that  the  sale  of 
the  negroes  in  question  was  in  opposition  to  the  spirit  of  the 
North  Carolina  Bill  of  Rights,  which  forbade  the  passage 
of  ex  post  facto  laws.  This  petition  was  signed  by  the 
eleven  men  who  had  owned  the  slaves  in  question  and  was 
sent  to  the  Assembly,  but  on  the  advice  of  persons  friendly 
5 


66  Slavery  in  the  State  of  North  Carolina.  [382 

to  the  Quakers  it  was  not  presented.1  This  did  not  deter 
the  Friends  from  further  petitions.  One  was  sent  in  1787, 
another  in  1788,  and  another  in  1789.  The  petitions  were 
about  various  matters,  but  none  of  them  amounted  to  any- 
thing. In  1792  they  petitioned  again,  asking  the  repeal  of 
the  law  restricting  emancipation,  and  demanding  that  it 
"never  again  disgrace  the  aftnals  of  a  Christian  people."  The 
petition  failed,  but  they  did  not  cease  to  send  others  in  the 
years  following.  In  1817  they  asked  the  Legislature  to 
take  joint  action  with  Congress  for  the  colonization  of  the 
free  negroes.  The  petition  failed,  and  the  next  year  they 
voted  $1000  to  the  American  Colonization  Society.  For 
some  time  there  seems  to  have  been  no  further  connection 
with  this  society. 

The  instruction  of  the  slaves  in  religious  and  educational 
matters  aroused  the  energies  of  the  Quakers.  They  became 
awakened  in  this  matter  in  1780,  when  it  seems  that  but  little 
had  been  done.  In  1787  it  was  asserted  that  one  of  the  two 
leading  objects  of  their  activities  toward  the  negro  was  to 
care  for,  protect,  and  instruct  the  freed  negroes.  The 
immediate  result  of  this  interest  does  not  appear;  but  in 
1815  Friends  were  exhorted  by  the  Yearly  Meeting  to  pre- 
pare schools  for  the  literary  and  religious  instruction  of 
the  negroes,2  and  in  1816  a  school  for  negroes  was  opened 
for  two  days  in  each  week.  Some  progress  was  made,  as 
may  be  seen  by  the  reports.  Most  of  the  negroes  in  the  West- 
ern Quarter  who  were  minors  had  been  put  in  a  way  to  get  "a 
portion  of  school  learning."  The  Quarter  recommended  that 
males  be  taught  to  "read,  write  and  cipher  as  far  as  the  Rule 
of  Three,"  and  that  females  be  taught  to  read  and  write 
merely.3  In  1821,  Levi  Coffin  and  his  cousin,  Vestal,  opened 

'A  chief  source  of  facts  relating  to  the  Quakers  and  Slavery  has 
been  "A  Narrative  of  Some  of  the  Proceedings  of  the  North  Carolina 
Yearly  Meeting  on  the  subject  of  Slavery  within  its  Limits."  (See 
"Slavery  and  Servitude,"  p.  50,  note  i.) 

2  Quaker  pamphlet  cited  above,  p.  24. 

3 Ibid.,  p.  24.  See  also  Weeks:  "  Southern  Quakers  and  Slavery," 
p.  231. 


383]  Religious  Life.  67 

a  Sunday  school  for  the  blacks  at  New  Garden  and  began  to 
teach  some  slaves  to  spell;  but  when  they  could  spell  words 
of  two  or  three  letters  they  were  withdrawn  by  their  masters. 
The  former  attempt  must  have  been  as  unsatisfactory  as  that 
of  the  Coffins,  since  the  standing  committee  of  the  Quakers 
reported  in  1821  that  they  could  find  no  way  to  educate  col- 
ored children  except  in  the  families  of  Friends.  Either  in 
this  way  or  otherwise  some  progress  was  undoubtedly 
made,  as  appears  from  the  reports  sent  in  to  the  Yearly 
Meeting.  When  the  Assembly  passed  the  law  forbidding- 
slaves  to  be  taught  to  read  and  write  the  Quakers  petitioned 
for  its  repeal,  and  they  also  asked  for  the  repeal  of  the  law 
forbidding  colored  persons  to  preach.  They  said:  "We 
consider  these  laws  unrighteous  and  contrary  to  the  spirit 
of  Christianity,  offensive  to  God;  and  your  memorialists 
believe,  if  not  repealed,  they  will  increase  the  difficulties  and 
dangers  they  are  intended  to  prevent."1  Furthermore,  they 
asked  for  the  enactment  of  a  law  to  instruct  slaves  in  reli- 
gion and  in  reading,  so  that  they  could  read  the  Bible. 

To  accomplish  the  liberation  of  slaves  in  the  face  of  the 
laws  they  had  recourse  to  corporate  ownership.  In  1808 
a  committee  was  appointed  on  the  state  of  the  people  of 
color,  and  its  recommendation,  which  was  adopted,  was 
that  certain  trustees  should  be  appointed  to  whom  should  be 
conveyed  the  slaves  whom  it  was  desired  to  emancipate. 
These  slaves  were  to  be  held  in  nominal  bondage,  but  the 
trustees  were  to  retain  only  so  much  power  over  them  as 
should  be  for  the  good  of  the  slaves'  conduct.  Thus  an 
idle  negro  might  be  coerced  moderately.  The  Friends  took 
this  step  on  the  advice  of  Judge  William  Gaston,  who  was 
always  a  friend  of  freedom  and  of  the  slave.  At  first  some 
Friends  opposed  the  project,  but  they  gradually  changed 
their  views  and  the  custom  continued  in  force  until  the  Civil 
War.  As  soon  as  this  plan  was  in  operation,  slaves  began 
to  disappear  from  among  the  Quakers.  Many  of  them 

1See  Quaker  pamphlet  cited,  p.  34! 


68  Slavery  in  the  State  of  North  Carolina.  [384 

were  sent  out  of  the  State — either  to  free  territory  in  the 
United  States  or  to  Africa  or  to  the  West  Indies.  A  few 
could  be  freed  by  the  consent  of  the  County  Courts.  A 
considerable  number,  especially  those  who  were  connected 
by  family  bonds  with  the  slaves  of  persons  not  Quakers,  as 
well  as  old  persons  who  were  not  fit  to  begin  a  new  life  in 
a  new  place,  were  retained  in  the  hands  of  the  trustees. 
The  general  result  of  this  relation,  however,  was  to  move 
the  negroes  out  of  the  State;  and  this  was  no  doubt  due 
partly  to  the  legal  aspects  of  the  case  as  seen  in  the  decision 
in  the  Contentnea  Society  vs.  Dickinson,  to  which  reference 
has  already  been  made.1  This  decision  might  well  convince 
the  Quakers  that  they  could  not  hope  to  make  society  own- 
ership a  permanent  feature  and  they  used  more  and  more 
the  practice  of  sending  the  slaves  away.  Another  induce- 
ment to  send  the  slaves  away,  and  an  earlier  one,  was  the 
liability  of  having  them  become  a  charge  on  the  society. 
It  is  with  evident  feelings  of  relief  that  the  agents  of  the 
Eastern  Quarter  in  1820  reported  that  the  four  hundred 
slaves  who  were  owned  by  the  Yearly  Meeting  had  been 
managed  so  as  to  avoid  expense,  except  for  sending  some 
away.  In  1822  the  number  in  hand  was  four  hundred  and 
fifty  and  the  Yearly  Meeting  ordered  that  the  trustees 
should  receive  no  slaves  except  from  Quakers.  It  was  for 
this  reason  that  a  committee  was  appointed  to  examine  the 
laws  of  the  free  States  to  see  if  negroes  might  be  sent 
thither.  In  1823  this  committee  made  its  report  in  favor  of 
Ohio,  Indiana  and  Illinois,  and  steps  were  taken  to  remove 
the  slaves  as  rapidly  as  possible,  and  $200  was  voted  to 
defray  the  expenses.  They  were  sent  to  Pennsylvania,  to 
the  Northwest,  to  Hayti,  and,  perhaps,  to  Liberia.  Six  hun- 
dred and  fifty-two  had  gone  by  1830  and  four  hundred  and 
two  were  still  under  care.  The  expense  of  moving  so  many 
had  reached  $12,769.50,  not  all  of  which  had  been  borne 
by  the  North  Carolina  Friends,  for  in  1829  the  Rhode 

1See  Quaker  pamphlet  cited,  p.  32.     Although  this  decision  was 
not  given  till  1827,  the  case  was  begun  earlier  than  1822. 


385]  Religious  Life.  ^  69 

Island  Yearly  Meeting  had  contributed  to  the  work 
$i35i-5O-  Sometimes  the  negroes  themselves  paid  part  of 
the  expense  of  removal  by  being  hired  out  for  wages,  the 
surplus  earnings  being  saved  for  this  purpose.  But  the 
Friends  were  not  ungenerous  in  this  matter.  On  one 
occasion  four  women  had  promised  to  go  and  leave  their 
husbands  in  slavery.  At  the  last  moment  they  refused  to 
go,  and  the  Friends  bought  the  husbands  at  an  expense  of 
$1400  and  sent  them  along  with  the  faithful  wives.  The 
owners  of  the  husbands  were  here  equally  benevolent,  for 
they  sold  them  at  half  their  value.  The  last  important 
removal  was  in  1836,  when  fifty-seven  persons  were  sent 
to  the  Northwest  and  two  hundred  were  left  in  the  possession 
of  the  society.  Many  of  these  were  old  people  and  children. 
Death  rapidly  thinned  the  one  class,  and  the  members  of 
the  other  were  sent  away  as  they  became  grown.  In  1848 
the  number  was  about  twelve,  and  it  was  said  by  the  Com- 
mittee on  Sufferings :  "It  is  believed  that  there  is  no  instance 
of  any  [slaves]  being  held  among  us  so  as  to  deprive  them 
of  the  benefit  of  their  labor."1  In  1856  there  were  eighteen 
still  under  care. 

The  work  of  the  Quakers  was  not  easy.  "Such,"  says  the 
narrative  of  the  Committee  on  Sufferings,  from  which  I  have 
already  taken  so  much,  "it  would  appear  was  the  prejudice 
against  freeing  the  slaves,  the  danger  of  their  being  carried 
off  and  sold  in  distant  parts,  the  ignominy  of  their  situation ; 
that  there  was  no  way  but  to  remove  them  to  the  free  gov- 
ernments as  fast  as  their  circumstances  would  permit." 
Many  Quakers  and  other  persons  moved  from  North  Caro- 
lina to  the  Northwest,  and  the  Friends  often  sent  slaves 
whom  they  desired  to  free  along  with  these  emigrants. 
Sometimes  a  large  number  would  be  sent,  and  trusted 
Quakers  would  go  along  with  them  with  authority  to 
effect  emancipation.  Sometimes  a  ship  would  be  chartered, 
as  when  the  negroes  wanted  to  go  to  the  West  Indies. 

1  Quaker  pamphlet  cited,  p.  40. 


70  Slavery  in  the  State  of  North  Carolina.  [386 

To  the  Quakers  must  be  given,  also,  much  of  the  credit 
for  the  organization  of  the  North  Carolina  Manumission 
Society.  This  society  existed  in  the  region  around  Greens- 
boro, where  the  non-slaveholding  element  was  strong.  It 
had  members  who  were  not  Quakers,  but  it  had  many,  per- 
haps a  majority,  who  were  of  that  faith.  This  society  had 
many  branches  and  its  inception  was  doubtless  due  to  the 
efforts  of  Charles  Osborn,  a  Quaker  minister,  who  organ- 
ized various  branches  in  Guilford  County  in  1816.  In  the 
same  year  these  branches  were  organized  into  a  general 
society,  and  in  the  following  year  this  society  agreed  to 
act  in  connection  with  the  American  Colonization  Society. 
To  this  move  there  was,  however,  much  opposition,  mostly 
from  the  Quaker  members.  These  were  largely  abolition- 
ists and  they  looked  upon  colonization  as  an  aid  to  slavery. 
The  minority  seceded  and  continued  to  meet  at  New  Garden 
till  most  of  them  had  moved  to  the  West.  The  society, 
however,  continued  to  grow.  In  1821,  Benjamin  Lundy 
appeared  in  North  Carolina  and  made  anti-slavery  speeches 
in  Guilford  and  Randolph  Counties.  He  came  from  Ten- 
nessee, where  Elihu  Embree  had  already  inaugurated  a 
promising  anti-slavery  movement.1  In  1824  the  term 
"Colonization"  was  dropped  from  the  name  of  the  society. 
In  1825  there  were  thirty-three  local  societies2  with  a  total 
of  more  than  1000  members.  In  1827  there  were  forty 
branches;  but  this  was  the  flood-tide  of  the  movement. 
Public  sentiment  was  turning  against  the  cause  of  the  aboli- 
tionists, as  has  been  already  seen.  In  1834  the  society  had 
its  last  meeting.  Of  those  who  had  been  leaders  many  had 
emigrated.  Many  of  the  rank  and  file  had  either  gone 
away  or  been  frightened  by  the  greater  vehemence  of  the 
pro-slavery  advocates.  Whatever  of  vitality  it  had  left 
seems  to  have  been  thrown  into  support  of  the  Under- 


"Sketch  of   Elihu  Embree."     Publication  of  Vanderbilt 
Southern  History  Association,  No.  2,  1897. 

2  Weeks  says  thirty-six,  but  names  only  thirty-three.     "Southern 
Quakers,"  p.  240. 


387]  Religious  Life.  71 

ground  Railway.  It  became  in  it's  later  days  emphatically 
abolitionist.  It  advised  its  members  to  subscribe  for 
Lundy's  paper,  and  in  1830  it  passed  resolutions  in  support 
of  William  Lloyd  Garrison.1 

The  Presbyterian  Church  of  North  Carolina  had  never  so 
large  a  proportion  of  negro  members  as  the  Methodist  or 
Baptist  Churches,  but  it  opened  its  doors  as  freely  to  the 
slaves.  These  were  given  special  seats  and  admitted  to  the 
sacrament  of  the  commu'nion  after  the  whites.  That  many  of 
them  became  faithful  and  obedient  Christians  there  can  be 
no  doubt.  Rev.  J.  D.  Mitchell,  a  Presbyterian  pastor  of 
Lynchburg,  Va.,  said  in  1858,  after  twenty-seven  years  in  the 
pastorate :  "Our  colored  members  have  exhibited  a  uniform 
consistency  of  moral  and  religious  character.  In  my  long 
pastorate  I  remember  only  three  cases  of  discipline  among 
the  servants.  *  *  *  Instances  of  high-toned  piety  are 
frequent  among  them."2  The  Southern  Presbyterian  bore 
evidence  that  the  Bible  was  often  read  in  the  churches  where 
there  were  negroes,  especially  the  parts  dealing  with  the 
duties  of  master  and  slaves.  The  reading  of  the  Bible,  it 
thought,  was  not  necessary  to  getting  to  heaven,  and  if 
slaves  were  taught  to  read  they  would  read  incendiary  liter- 
erature  more  than  the  Bible.  "There  are  more  pious  per- 
sons among  the  blacks,"  it  added,  "than  among  any  sim- 
ilar class  of  people  in  the  world."3  It  is  likely  that  the  atti- 
tude of  this  Church  in  North  Carolina  did  not  differ  materi- 
ally from  the  spirit  of  these  utterances. 

At  first  the  Church  was  not  hostile  to  emancipation  in 
the  abstract,  but  it  was  not  inclined  to  wholesale  abolition  in 
actual  practice.  In  1787  the  Synod  of  New  York  and  Phila- 
delphia declared  that  it  highly  approved  of  universal  liberty 
and  of  "the  interest  which  many  States  had  taken  in  pro- 
moting the  abolition  of  slavery;"  but  since  indolent  and 

'See  "North  Carolina  Manumission  Society,"  by  C.  C.  Weaver, 
Trinity  College  (N.  C.)  Historical  Papers,  series  I,  p.  71. 
3 Quoted  in  De  Bow's  Review,  vol.  24,  pp.  277  and  279. 
3 Ibid.,  vol.  18,  p.  52. 


72  Slavery  in  the  State  of  North  Carolina.  [388 

ignorant  persons  would  be  a  disadvantage  in  a  community, 
it  urged  that  slaves  be  educated,  that  they  be  encour- 
aged to  buy  themselves,  and  that  members  use  all  efforts  to 
secure  abolition  of  slavery.1  In  1795  the  question  of  fellow- 
ship with  slaveholders  was  up,  but  elicited  nothing  but  an 
injunction  to  brotherly  love  and  charity.  The  same 
body  in  1815  urged  members  to  give  religious  education  to 
the  slaves,  so  that  they  might  be  fit  for  freedom  when  God 
might  "open  the  door  for  their  emancipation."  At  the 
same  time  it  declared  that  trading  in  slaves  and  cruelty 
toward  them  were  contrary  to  the  spirit  of  Christ.  The 
split  between  the  Northern  and  Southern  wings  of  the 
Church  was  already  in  sight,  although  it  did  not  proceed 
so  rapidly  as  among  the  Methodists.  In  1818  the  General 
Assembly  endorsed  abolition  in  the  abstract  and  expressed 
sympathy  for  the  South  where  most  of  the  virtuous  people 
were  thought  to  be  for  emancipation.  It  urged  such  peo- 
ple to  continue  their  efforts  and  exhorted  others  not  to  make 
"uncharitable  reflection  on  their  brethren,  who  unhappily 
live  among  slaves  whom  they  cannot  immediately  set  free." 
It  also  spoke  decidedly  against  the  separation  of  slave  fam- 
ilies by  sale.  Any  church  member  who  would  do  this 
ought  to  be  suspended  from  fellowship,  "unless  there  be 
such  peculiar  circumstances  attending  the  case  as  can  but 
seldom  happen."2  For  some  time  after  this  the  question 
was  not  brought  up;  but  in  1835  it  would  be  ignored  no 
longer.  A  committee  was  appointed  on  the  matter,  and 
the  next  year  it  reported  that  slavery  was  a  civil  question 
and  ought  not  to  be  considered  by  the  Assembly.  After 
some  debate  the  matter  was  indefinitely  postponed.  But  it 
was  up  again  in  1845,  when  it  was  resolved  that  "since 
Christ  and  his  inspired  Apostles  did  not  make  the  holding 
of  slaves  a  bar  to  communion,  we,  as  a  Court  of  Christ,  have 
no  authority  to  do  so ;  since  they  did  not  attempt  to  remove 

1  See  "  Presbyterianism  and  Slavery,"  an  official  document  pub- 
lished for  the  use  of  the  General  Assembly  in  1836. 
9 Ibid.,  pp.  6-8. 


389]  Religious  Life.  73 

it  from  the  Church  by  legislation,  we  have  no  authority  to 
legislate  on  that  subject."  The  progress  of  the  slaves  could 
not  be  obtained  by  ecclesiastical  legislation  or  by  "indis- 
criminate denunciations  against  slaveholders,  without 
regard  to  their  character  or  circumstances."  The  resolu- 
tion passed  by  168  to  13  votes.1  By  such  action  this  con- 
servative Church  put  off  its  division  till  the  war  was  actually 
at  hand.  This  relation  of  the  general  Church  to  slavery 
must  have  influenced  the  attitude  of  the  local  Church.  It 
no  doubt  kept  up  a  conservative  and  abiding  interest  in  the 
welfare  of  the  slave  on  the  part  of  the  Church  authorities. 
What  Henry  Evans  was  in  the  Methodist  Church  and 
Ralph  Freeman  in  the  Baptist,  John  Chavis  was  in  the 
Presbyterian  Church.  In  native  ability  he  was  no  doubt 
equal  to  either  of  the  other  two,  but  in  education  he  was 
superior  to  them.  He  was,  probably,  born  in  Granville 
County,  near  Oxford,  about  1763.  He  was  a  full-blooded 
negro  of  dark  brown  color.  He  was  born  free.  In 
early  life  he  attracted  the  attention  of  the  whites,  and  he  was 
sent  to  Princeton  College  to  see  if  a  negro  would  take  a 
collegiate  education.  He  was  a  private  pupil  under  the 
famous  Dr.  Witherspoon,  and  his  ready  acquisition  of 
knowledge  soon  convinced  his  friends  that  the  experiment 
would  issue  favorably.  After  leaving  Princeton  he  went  to 
Virginia,  sent  thither,  no  doubt,  to  preach  to  the  negroes. 
In  1801  he  was  at  the  Hanover  (Virginia)  Presbytery,  "rid- 
ing as  a  missionary  under  the  direction  of  the  General 
Assembly."  In  1805,  at  the  suggestion  of  Rev.  Henry 
Patillo,  of  North  Carolina,  he  returned  to  his  native  State. 
For  some  cause,  I  know  not  what,  it  was  not  till  1809  that 
he  was  received  as  a  licentiate  by  the  Orange  Presbytery. 
Although  he  preached  frequently  to  the  regular  congrega- 
tions at  Nutbush,  Shiloh,  Island  Creek,  and  other  churches 
in  the  neighborhood,  I  do  not  find  that  he  was  called  to  a 
church  as  pastor.  Mr.  George  Wortham,  a  lawyer  of  Gran- 
tee "American  Slavery  as  Viewed  and  Acted  on  by  the  Presby- 
terian Church  in  America,"  by  Rev.  A.  T.  McGill,  1865. 


74  Slavery  in  the  State  of  North  Carolina.  [390 

ville  County,  said  in  1883 :  "I  have  heard  him  read  and  ex- 
plain the  Scriptures  to  my  father's  family  repeatedly.  His 
English  was  remarkably  pure,  containing  no  'negroisms;' 
his  manner  was  impressive,  his  explanations  clear  and  con- 
cise, and  his  views,  as  I  then  thought  and  still  think,  entirely 
orthodox.  He  was  said  to  have  been  an  acceptable  preacher, 
his  sermons  abounding  in  strong  common  sense  views  and 
happy  illustrations,  without  any  efforts  at  oratory  or  sensa- 
tional appeals  to  the  passions  of  his  hearers.  He  had  certainly 
read  God's  Word  much  and  meditated  deeply  on  it.  He  had 
a  small  but  select  library  of  theological  works,  in  which  were 
to  be  found  the  works  of  Flavel,  Buxton,  Boston,  and  others. 
I  have  now  two  volumes  of  "Dwight's  Theology,"  which 
were  formerly  in  his  possession.  He  was  said  by  his  old 
pupils  to  have  been  a  good  Latin  and  a  fair  Greek  scholar.  He 
was  a  man  of  intelligence  on  general  subjects  and  conversed 
well."  He  continued  to  preach  till  in  1831  the  Legislature 
forbade  negroes  to  preach.  It  was  a  trial  to  him  and  he 
appealed  to  the  Presbytery.  That  body  could  do  nothing 
more  than  recommend  him  "to  acquiesce  in  the  decision  of 
the  Legislature  referred  to,  until  God  in  his  providence  shall 
open  to  him  a  path  of  duty  in  regard  to  the  exercise  of  his 
ministry."  Acquiesce  he  did.  He  died  in  1838  and  the 
Presbytery  continued  to  his  widow  the  pension  which  it  had 
formerly  allowed  to  him. 

Mr.  Chavis'  most  important  work  was  educational. 
Shortly  after  his  return  to  North  Carolina  he  opened  a  class- 
ical school,  teaching  in  Granville,  Wake,  and  Chatham 
Counties.  His  school  was  for  the  patronage  of  the  whites. 
Among  his  patrons  were  the  best  people  of  the  neighbor- 
hood. Among  his  pupils  were  Willie  P.  Mangum,  after- 
wards United  States  Senator,  and  Priestley  H.  Mangum,  his 
brother,  Archibald  and  John  Henderson,  sons  of  Chief  Jus- 
tice Henderson,  Charles  Manly,  afterwards  Governor  of  the 
State,  Dr.  James  L.  Wortham  of  Oxford,  N.  C.,  and  many 
more  excellent  men  who  did  not  become  so  distinguished 
in  their  communities.  Rev.  James  H.  Homer,  one  of  the 


391]  Religious  Life.  75 

best  teachers  of  high  schools  the  State  has  produced,  said 
of  John  Clavis:  "My  father  not  only  went  to  school  to 
him  but  boarded  in  his  family  *  *  *  The  school  was 
the  best  at  that  time  to  be  found  in  the  State." 

All  accounts  agree  that  John  Chavis  was  a  gentleman. 
Mr.  Paul  C.  Cameron,  a  son  of  Judge  Duncan  Cameron, 
and  a  prominent  man  in  Orange  County,  said:  "In  my 
boyhood  life  at  my  father's  home  I  ofte'n  saw  John 
Chavis,  a  venerable  old  negro  man,  recognized  as  a 
freeman  and  as  a  preacher  or  clergyman  of  the  Presby- 
terian Church.  As  such  he  was  received  by  my  father 
and  treated  with  kindness  and  consideration,  and  respected 
as  a  man  of  education,  good  sense,  and  most  estimable 
character.  *  *  *  He  seemed  familiar  with  the  pro- 
prieties of  social  life,  yet  modest  and  unassuming,  and 
sober  in  his  language  and  opinions.  He  was  polite — yes, 
courtly;  but  it  was  from  his  heart  and  not  affected.  I 
remember  him  as  a  man  without  guile.  His  conversation 
indicated  that  he  lived  free  from  all  evil  or  suspicion,  seeking 
the  good  opinion  of  the  public  by  the  simplicity  of  his  life 
and  the  integrity  of  his  conduct.  If  he  had  any  vanity  he 
most  successfully  concealed  it.  *  *  *  I  write  of  him  as 
I  remember  him  and  as  he  was  appreciated  by  my  superiors, 
whose  respect  he  enjoyed."  The  same  gentleman  adds  that 
the  slaves  were  amazed  to  see  a  negro  receive  so  much 
respect  from  the  whites.  Others  have  confirmed  Mr.  Cam- 
eron's statement.1  From  a  source  of  the  greatest  respecta- 
bility I  have  learned  that  this  negro  was  received  as  an 
equal  socially  and  asked  to  table  by  the  most  respecta- 
ble people  of  the  neighborhood.  Such  was  the  position  of 
the  best  specimen  of  the  negro  race  in  North  Carolina  in 
the  days  before  race  prejudices  were  aroused.  It  goes  with- 
out saying  that  such  a  negro  would  not  receive  the  same 

'The  facts  here  given  were  collected  by  Dr.  Charles  Phillips,  of  the 
University  of  North  Carolina,  and  used  by  Dr.  C.  L.  Smith  for  the 
short  sketch  of  John  Chavis,  which  he  included  in  his  "History  of 
Education  in  North  Carolina,"  Washington,  D.  C.,  1888,  pp.  138-140. 


76  Slavery  in  the  State  of  North  Carolina.  [392 

treatment  to-day.  That  such  is  true  is  due  to  that  strenuous 
state  of  feeling  which  preceded  and  followed  forcible  eman- 
cipation. So  much  the  cause  of  humanity  would  have  gained 
could  slavery  have  been  removed  by  reason ! 

In  1830  John  Clavis,  described  as  an  educated  colored 
Presbyterian  preacher,  was  teaching  a  school  for  free  col- 
ored children  in  Raleigh.  Joseph  Gales  attended  a  public 
examination  at  this  school  in  April,  1830,  and  said  in  his 
paper:  "It  was  an  example,  both  in  behavior  and  scholar- 
ship which  their  white  superiors  might  take  pride  in  imitat- 
ing-." He  complimented  a  speech  in  which  Chavistold  his 
pupils  that  they  possessed  but  an  humble  station  in  life; 
but  that  even  they  could  make  themselves  useful.1 

The  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  was  not  indifferent  to 
the  spiritual  welfare  of  the  slaves,  although  it  had  not  so 
many  slave  members  as  some  other  churches.  The  pro- 
portion is  indicated  for  1857,  as  follows :  Communicants, 
white  2341,  colored  345;  and  catechumens  (Sunday  School 
pupils),  white  1105  and  colored  488.  In  1858  it  was:  Com- 
municants, white  2364  and  colored  353 ;  and  catechumens, 
white  943  and  colored  351.  I  have  been  unable  to  find  full 
statistics  for  the  whole  time,  but  the  above  figures  show  the 
proportions  for  the  years  when  this  church  probably  had 
its  largest  number  of  members. 

Here  the  members  must  have  been  mostly  house  servants, 
since  the  Episcopalians  were  largely  slaveholders,  and  the 
2364  communicants  must  have  owned  many  thousands  of 
slaves.  Usually  the  colored  people  occupied  the  seats  reserved 
for  the  slaves,  as  in  other  churches.  Sometimes  there  were 
special  missions  for  the  slaves.  Capt.  T.  W.  Battle,  of  Edg- 
combe  County,  had  one,  but  discontinued  it  after  a  year 
because  the  slaves  took  no  interest  in  it.  Mr.  Josiah  Collins 
and  Rev.  W.  S.  Pettigrew  had  similar  enterprises  in  Wash- 
ington County,  and  there  seems  to  have  been  one  in  connec- 
tion with  the  church  at  Tarborough.2 

1  Raleigh  Register,  April  19,  1830. 

2  For  facts  here  mentioned  I  am  indebted  to  Dr.  K.  P.  Battle  of  the 
University  of  North  Carolina. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

INDUSTRIAL  AND  SOCIAL  RELATIONS  OF 
SLAVERY. 

Population. — At  the  outbreak  of  the  Revolution  there  were 
by  the  most  probable  estimate  36,000  colored  people  in 
North  Carolina.1  From  then  till  1790  no  facts  for  an  esti- 
mate have  come  under  my  observation.  From  the  latter 
date  till  1860  the  numbers  of  whites,  free  negroes  and  slaves, 
as  included  in  the  census  tables,  were  as  follows : 


Year. 

Whites. 

Increase. 
PerCent. 

Free 
Colored. 

Increase. 
PerCent. 

Slaves. 

Increase. 
PerCent. 

Total. 

1790 

288,204 

4,975 

100,572 

393,751 

1800 

337,764 

17.19 

7,043 

41.56 

133,296 

32-53 

478,103 

1810 

376,410 

11.44 

10,266 

45-76 

168,824 

26.65 

555,500 

1820 

419,200 

11.36 

14,612 

42.33 

205,017 

21-43 

638,829 

1830 

472,823 

12.79 

19,534 

33-74 

245,601 

19.79 

737,987 

1840 

484,870 

2.54 

22,732 

16.31 

245,817 

.08 

753,419 

1850 

553,028 

I4-05 

27,463 

20.81 

288,548 

17.38 

869,039 

1860 

629,942 

14.42 

30,463 

10.92 

331,059 

14-73 

992,622 

From  this  table  it  is  seen  that  the  increase  of  the  whites 
was  slow,  being  normal  at  about  13^  per  cent.,  a  rate 
decidedly  slower  than  that  maintaining  since  the  war.  This 
slow  increase  is  no  doubt  due  largely  to  emigration  which 
took  off  many  of  the  non-slaveholding  farmers  to  the 
Northwest  and  many  of  the  slaveholders  to  the  far  South. 
The  latter  movement  was  strongest  from  1800  to  1840;  the 
former  from  1830  to  1860.  Where  the  two  overlapped, 
from  1830  to  1840,  the  population  was  well-nigh  stationary. 


1  See  "  Slavery  and  Servitude  in  North  Carolina,"  p.  22. 

77 


78  Slavery  in  the  State  of  North  Carolina.  [394 

The  number  of  free  negroes  depended  on  the  number  of 
emancipations  plus  the  natural  increase  in  the  free  negro 
families.  Emancipation  was  considerably  practiced  till  1820. 
After  that  the  laws  grew  harder  on  free  negroes.  Many  of 
them  left  the  State,  and  thus  the  increase  was  reduced. 
During  the  last  decade  of  slavery  this  increase  was  smaller 
than  ever  before,  and  had  slavery  endured  till  1870  it  would, 
no  doubt,  have  been  well-nigh  nothing. 

Of  the  slave  population  the  greatest  increase  was  from 
1790  to  1800,  when  the  slave  trade  was  still  allowed,  but 
after  this  source  of  increase  had  been  destroyed  there  is  a 
decided  falling  off.  The  remarkable  drop  from  1830  to  1840 
has  sometimes  been  attributed  to  an  erroneous  census.  If  the 
claim  be  true  then  it  is  still  true  that  the  increase  was  very 
small,  since  from  1830  to  1850  it  was  only  17.48  per  cent. 
In  the  days  when  many  whites  moved  to  Georgia  and  Ala- 
bama, and  other  cotton  States,  there  must  have  been  a  con- 
siderable drain  on  the  numbers  of  the  slave  population. 
But  later  on  when  the  great  demand  for  slaves  in  these  States 
had  raised  the  price  paid  for  them  a  great  many  more  were 
sent.  This  probably  accounts  for  the  slow  increase  in  the 
census  tables  after  1830. 

There  were  34,658  slaveholders  in  North  Carolina  in 
1860,  and  these  owned  in  all  331,059  slaves,  or  an  average  of 
9.6  to  each  owner.  In  Virginia  there  were  9.4  slaves  to 
each  owner,  and  in  South  Carolina  there  were  15.  For 
North  Carolina  there  had  been  from  1850  till  1860  a  lessen- 
ing of  the  number  of  slaves  to  an  ow'ner,  since  it  was  in  1850 
10.1  slaves  to  each  owner. 

Distribution. — In  the  colonial  period  the  eastern  counties 
had  most  of  the  slaves ;  but  throughout  the  period  of  state- 
hood the  West  acquired  continually  more  of  them.  It  never 
had  as  many  as  the  East,  but  along  the  upland  rivers,  and 
wherever  in  the  West  there  was  fertile  land,  there  the  large 
slave-tended  farm  was  found.  This  was  true  of  the  upper 
Roanoke  section  of  the  Yadkin,  and  of  other  river  sectio'ns. 
Jn  1790  there! were  in  the^western  counties  30,068  slaves 


395]         Industrial  and  Social  Relations  of  Slavery.  79 

and  in  the  East  70,504.  In  1860  the  same  western  counties 
had  146,463  slaves  and  the  eastern  184,596.  In  the  West 
the  ratio  of  increase  in  seventy  years  was  387  per  cent., 
while  in  the  East  it  was  161  per  cent.  In  1790  there  were  in 
the  same  western  counties  136,655  whites,  and  in  1860  the 
number  was  385,724.  In  1790  the  same  eastern  counties 
had  151,549  whites,  and  in  1860  they  had  244,218.  Thus  it 
will  be  seen  that  for  these  seven  decades  the  ratio  for  the 
increase  of  the  whites  in  the  West  was  182  per  cent.,  and  for 
those  in  the  East  it  was  61  per  cent.1  Plainly  enough  the 
West  was  gaining  rapidly  on  the  East  in  regard  to  slave 
population.  This  was  partly  due  to  the  extension  of  the 
area  of  cotton  cultivation.  Counties  like  Mecklenberg, 
Anson  and  Union  were  properly  under  the  influence  of  the 
western  ideas  and  life  in  1790;  but  in  1860  they  were  great 
cotton  counties  and  largely  slaveholding.  Moreover,  in 
other  western  counties,  which  by  1800  were  past  the  pioneer 
stage,  there  grew  up  continually  numerous  wealthy  families. 
They  owned  slaves.  The  slaves  competed  with  the  small 
white  farmers.  Thus  there  began  slowly  that  process  by 
which  slavery  always  eats  out  all  the  life  of  a  free  yeomanry. 
The  small  farmers  sold  their  farms  and  moved  to  the 
Northwest,  the  slaveholders  bought  the  farms  and  consoli- 
dated landholding.  Had  slavery  continued  till  the  present 
time  some  wonderful  changes  would  have  taken  place  in  this 
part  of  the  State.  There  is  every  reason  to  believe  that 
besides  the  tobacco  industry,  which  might  profitably  have 
been  conducted  here,  this  would  have  become,  along  with 
parts  of  Virginia,  a  notable  breeding  ground  for  slaves  to  be 
sent  southward. 

The  progress  of  the  slave  population  in  the  State  could 
not  have  been  due  in  any  considerable  extent  to  importa- 

*Of  course  the  selection  of  a  dividing  line  between  the  East  and  the 
West  is  a  matter  more  or  less  arbitrary,  but  the  change  of  a  dozen 
counties  along  this  line,  where  white  and  black  populations  remained 
relatively  constant,  would  make  no  appreciable  difference  in  the 
proportions  given  in  the  text. 


80  Slavery  in  the  State  of  North  Carolina.  [396 

tion.  Before  the  final  prohibition  of  the  foreign  slave  trade 
by  Congress  in  1808,  there  was  a  strong  feeling  against  it 
in  North  Carolina.  In  1774  the  Provincial  Congress  of  the 
colony  resolved  that  they  would  not  import  or  purchase 
any  slaves  brought  into  the  colony  after  November,  I774-1 
This  was  part  of  the  body  of  resolutions  by  the  first  Pro- 
vincial Congress,  and  was  due  as  much  to  the  desire  to 
retaliate  on  Great  Britain  as  to  opposition  to  the  slave 
trade.  How  well  this  resolution  was  executed  I  am  not 
able  to  say ;  but  it  was,  no  doubt,  often  violated ;  for,  in  1786 
(chap.  5),  the  Assembly  passed  a  law  the  preamble  of  which 
ran:  "WHEREAS,  The  importation  of  slaves  into  this  State 
is  productive  of  evil  consequences  and  highly  impolitic." 
In  accordance  with  this  patriotic  sentiment  40  shillings  was 
to  be  levied  on  each  imported  slave  under  seven  years  old  and 
over  forty,  and  £  5  on  those  from  seven  to  twelve  and  from 
thirty  to  forty  years,  and  £  10  en  those  from  twelve 
to  thirty  years.  This  duty  was  to  be  levied  whether 
the  slaves  were  imported  by  land  or  by  sea.  This  was 
aimed  avowedly  at  the  slave  trade,  and  exception  was  made 
in  favor  of  incoming  settlers  who  brought  slaves,  and  per- 
sons who  received  foreign  slaves  by  gift,  marriage  or  inheri- 
tance. Besides,  a  tax  of  £5  was  to  be  collected  on  all 
slaves  imported  directly  from  Africa.  A  further  section  pro- 
hibited the  introduction  into  the  State  of  slaves  from  the 
States  which  had  then  recently  liberated  their  slaves,  and 
directed  that  those  already  so  imported  should  be  sent  to 
the  places  whence  they  came.  The  motives  for  making  this 
law  I  can  know  only  inferentially.  There  seems  to  have 
been  behind  it  an  honest  desire  to  restrict  the  number  of 
slaves  in  North  Carolina,  and  a  purpose  to  protect  domestic 
slavery  from  the  disquieting'  influence  of  the  more  unman- 
ageable slaves  from  Africa  and  the  West  Indies. 

The  public  opinion,  however,  soon  changed,  and  the  act 

'"Colonial    Records   of    North   Carolina,"    IX,    p.    1046.      Also 
"American  Archives,"  4th  series,  I,  p.  735. 


397J          Industrial  and  Social  Relations  of  Slavery.  81 

was  repealed  in  1790.  But  almost  immediately  there 
occurred  an  incident  which  secured  the  enactment  of  still 
severer  laws  against  the  slave  trade.  I  refer  to  the  Haytien 
outbreak,  which  occurred  in  1791.  These  outrages,  bad  as 
they  were,  were  exaggerated  in  American  minds  and  filled 
Southern  hearts  with  terror.1  In  1794  (chap.  2)  a  strict  law 
was  passed  forbidding  the  importation  of  slaves  or  indented 
colored  persons  under  a  penalty  of  £100  fine.  This  law 
did  not  forbid  a  person  who  came  into  the  State  to  settle 
to  bring  his  slaves  with  him.  A  year  later  (Laws  of  1795, 
chap.  1 6)  it  was  provided  that  this  privilege  should  not 
apply  to  persons  coming  from  the  West  Indies,  the  Bahamas 
and  the  "southern  coast  of  America,"  if  the  imported 
negroes  were  over  fifteen  years  old. 

The  foreign  slave  trade  was  prohibited  by  Congress  from 
1808,  and  in  the  same  year  the  North  Carolina  Assembly 
repealed  its  law  of  I794-2  The  National  Statute  left  the 
disposition  of  the  illegally  imported  slaves  to  the  States  in 
which  they  should  be  taken  up.  The  North  Carolina 
Assembly  took  up  the  matter  in  1816  (chap.  12),  and  enacted 
that  such  slaves  should  be  sold  by  the  sheriff  for  the  use  of 
the  State,  one-fifth  to  go  to  the  informer.  This  law 
remained  in  force  till  the  war.3  This  National  Statute  could 
not  have  been  enforced  very  well,  if  at  all,  before  1816,  for 
the  law  of  that  year  provided  that  slaves  imported  into  the 
State  from  abroad  before  1816  and  the  descendants  of  the 
same  should  not  be  sold  according  to  this  law,  but  that  the 
owners  thereof  should  have  legal  titles  made  out  and  certi- 
fied by  the  sheriffs.  In  view  of  this  law  and  of  the  general 
loose  administration  of  the  National  Statute  in  the  South, 
it  is  safe  to  say  that  it  was  not  always  enforced  in  North 
Carolina  after  1816. 


*See  Du  Bois:  "  Suppression  of  the  Slave  Trade,"  pp.  72  and  73. 
*Laws  of  1808,  chap.  16. 

3 Revised  Statutes,  chap,  in,  sees.  1-6,  and  Revised  Code,  chap. 
107,  sees.  1-6. 
6 


82  Slavery  in  the  State  of  North  Carolina.  [398 

As  to  the  prices  of  slaves  it  has  been  impossible  to  pro- 
cure any  trustworthy  evidence.  It  is  enough  to  call  atten- 
tion to  the  fact  that  the  opening  of  the  cotton  industry  with 
the  greater  demand  for  slaves  in  the  Gulf  States  continued 
to  advance  the  prices.  Slavery  became  more  profitable,  and 
North  Carolina  found  it  fixed  in  her  life  more  than  was 
formerly  expected.  It  has  already  been  pointed  out  how 
slavery  extended  itself  at  this  period  into  the  western 
counties  with  the  probable  reason  that  this  region  raised 
slaves  for  the  Southern  markets.  It  was  the  ever  acting  law 
of  economic  rent  applied  to  slaveholding.  As  the  price 
of  the  product  increased,  territory  that  was  formerly  below 
the  point  of  diminishing  returns  was  now  taken  within  the 
area  of  cultivation. 

The  Regulation  of  the  Slave's  Life. — Next  to  the  loss  of 
liberty  the  worst  evil  connected  with  slavery  was  the  fact 
that  it  left  the  welfare  of  the  slave  to  the  accidental  temper 
of  the  master.  If  the  latter  were  humane  and  intelligent 
the  slave  fared  well.  If  he  were  otherwise  the  slave  fared 
poorly.  A  correspondent  has  called  to  my  attention  the 
fact  that  a  master's  treatment  of  his  slaves  corresponded 
relatively  to  his  treatment  of  his  children:  good  father, 
good  master ;  careless  or  cruel  father,  careless  or  cruel  mas- 
ter. There  were  all  kinds  of  masters  as  there  are  all  kinds 
of  fathers.  Some  undoubtedly  were  cruel;  some  undoubt- 
edly were  wisely  humane;  many  were  neither  the  one  nor 
the  other,  but  gave  their  slaves  such  care  as  custom 
demanded,  just  as  many  men  clothe  and  train  their  chil- 
dren without  really  having  any  opinions  of  their  own  about 
the  matter. 

Of  the  slave-owners  there  were  the  holders  of  large  slave 
herds  and  the  holders  of  few  slaves.  Of  the  former  there  was 
the  cultured  class  of  planters  and  the  more  ordinary  class 
of  wealthy  farmers  about  which  I  have  already  spoken. 
The  gentleman  planter  type  was  not  so  numerous  in  North 
Carolina  as  elsewhere  in  the  South.  Such  masters  were 
often  absentee  landlords,  though  this  was  not  general  in 


399]          Industrial  and  Social  Relations  of  Slavery.  83 

the  State.  Here  their  relation  to  the  slaves  was  patriarchal. 
As  a  class  they  were  careful  of  the  slaves'  health  and  morals, 
and  philanthropic  students  of  the  theories  of  good  master- 
ship. The  wealthy  farmers  rarely  lived  away  from  their 
estates.  They  were  usually  religious.  They  were  thrifty  and 
honest.  Their  sons  worked  in  the  fields  along  with  the 
slaves,  sometimes  leading  the  plow  gang,  and  sometimes 
swinging  a  cradle  in  the  harvest.  Their  wives  superintended 
the  making  of  the  slave  clothing,  the  cooking  of  the  slave 
dinners,  and  the  nursing  of  the  slave  patients.  Here  the 
slave  fared  best,  and  this  class  was  strong  in  North  Carolina. 
It  extended  all  over  the  State,  and  was  extensively  found 
in  the  West.  The  lot  of  the  slave  who  belonged  to  the  owner 
of  few  slaves  might  be  bad — and  was  usually  not  good.  He 
was  frequently  overworked  or  underfed.  The  straitened 
condition  of  his  master,  often  not  an  enlightened  man,  was 
responsible  for  this. 

Next  to  the  master  the  overseer  was  the  most  important 
personage.  If  the  master  were  absent  his  powers  were 
great.  He  was  usually  a  white  man,  but  rarely  a  slave. 
Often  a  man  owned  several  plantations,  on  each  of  which 
he  would  place  an  overseer,  and  over  all  of  which  he  would 
keep  continual  oversight.  Overseers  were  of  two  classes. 
Those  on  large  plantations  must  be  men  of  intelligence  and 
men  who  could  take  care  of  slaves  as  property.  They  com- 
manded good  salaries,  often  getting  $100  a  month.  On  the 
smaller  plantations  inferior  men  were  employed,  and  the 
slaves  there  were  not  so  well  cared  for.  Here  an  overseer 
was  well  paid  at  from  $200  to  $400  a  year.  What  an  over- 
seer should  do  properly  to  fulfill  his  office  may  be  seen  in 
the  statement  of  a  master  in  De  Bow's  Magazine  in  I856.1 
In  managing  negroes,  says  the  writer,  the  first  aim  of  the 
overseer  should  be  to  obey  the  instructions  of  the  master 
in  respect  to  them;  the  second  to  satisfy  them  that  he  is 
doing  so.  He  should  always  allow  the  slave  easy  appeal  to 

'Vol.  21,  p.  277. 


84  Slavery  in  the  State  of  North  Carolina,  [400 

the  master,  and  not  to  do  so  must  be  due  to  bad  temper, 
false  dignity,  or  the  notion  that  the  slave  has  no  rights.  If 
a  slave  makes  a  false  complaint  he  should  be  punished  for 
it,  and  the  privilege  of  complaining  should  not  extend  to  mat- 
ters affecting  the  overseer's  character,  for  a  negro  may  not 
testify  against  a  white  man.  Some  overseers  declared  that 
no  negroes  should  complain  of  them,  and  that  if  they  did, 
they  (the  overseers)  would  whip  them  in  spite  of  the  masters. 
"This,"  exclaimed  the  writer,  "is  simply  brutal  and  no  man 
of  spirit  will  permit  it."  Still  it  is  bad  policy  not  to  punish 
a  slave  without  the  consent  of  the  master.  An  overseer 
should  be  kind  to  the  slaves,  speaking  in  a  low  tone,  but 
firmly.  Negroes  should  not  be  fretted  at,  for  it  injured  their 
capacity  for  work,  and  when  practiced  on  the  young  had 
been  known  to  lessen  their  value.  Fretting  also  injured  the 
overseer.  "The  habit  of  swearing  at  or  before  negroes  an 
overseer  should  never  indulge  in.  If  the  negro  is  not 
allowed  to  swear  because  it  is  disrespectful  to  the  over- 
seer, the  latter  should  not  swear  because  it  is  disrespectful 
to  his  Maker.  Besides,  it  shocks  some  pious  negroes  and 
sets  a  bad  example  to  them  all."  The  overseer  should  visit 
the  cabins  and  promote  cleanliness  there,  see  that  clothes 
and  shoes  are  repaired,  and  on  Sunday  he  should  require  all 
the  slaves  to  appear  in  clean  clothes.  He  should  rather 
encourage  their  taste  for  finery  than  ridicule  it.  He  should 
consult  with  the  old  men  about  the  work — some  of  them 
were  very  intelligent.  He  should  be  disposed  to  share  their 
labor.  "Nothing  more  reconciles  a  negro  to  his  work  than 
the  overseer  sharing1  it  with  him.  Let  him  go  with  them 
in  heat,  rain  and  cold.  If  they  shuck  corn  at  night  let  him 
be  with  them."  Another  writer  in  the  same  magazine1 
declared  that  no  one  should  try  to  manage  slaves  who  had 
not  firmness,  fearlessness  and  self-control.  Punishment 
should  not  be  cruel.  "If  ever  any  of  my  negroes  are  cruelly 
and  inhumanely  treated,  bruised,  maimed,  or  otherwise 

1Vol.  21,  pp.  617-620. 


401]          Industrial  and  Social  Relations  of  Slavery.  85 

injured,"  the  overseer  was  dismissed.  Each  place  was  to 
keep  enough  milch  cows  to  furnish  milk  for  the  slaves.  The 
overseer  must  care  for  the  sick,  especially  for  the  pregnant 
women.  Nurses  should  be  provided  for  the  sick,  and 
mothers  of  young  children  should  not  be  assigned  full  tasks. 
These  regulations  were  prepared  by  two  successful  farmers 
who  did  not  live  in  North  Carolina  yet  they  are  standards  for 
slavery  as  a  whole,  and  bring  to  us  vividly  the  office  of  the 
overseer.  Possibly  they  were  never  enforced  entirely.  Cer- 
tainly they  could  not  have  been  always  enforced,  but  there 
is  no  doubt  that  the  spirit  of  them  was  present  on  many 
plantations.  It  was  this  spirit  and  its  practical  realization 
in  many  ways  which  gave  some  foundation  to  the  claim 
that  the  master  provided  better  for  the  physical  wants  of 
the  slaves  than  the  freed  negro  provides  for  himself  in  the 
days  since  the  war.  The  claim  is  to-day  debatable,  but  it  is 
necessary  to  remember  that  physical  wants  are  not  the  chief 
thing  in  life.  ; 

I  have"  been  able  to  get  the  following  account  of  slave 
life  on  a  rice  plantation  near  Wilmington,  N.  C.  My 
informant  is  a  son  of  the  gentleman  who  owned  the  place 
for  some  years  before  the  war,  and  in  his  young  manhood 
he  was  overseer  on  the  farm.  He  is  now  a  prosperous  physi- 
cian, and  I  have  every  reason  to  believe  that  his  informa- 
tion is  trustworthy.  He  says :  "There  were  about  one 
hundred  slaves  on  the  plantation.  They  were  called  at  dawn 
and  went  to  the  fields  under  the  care  of  drivers  at  sunrise. 
Two  meals  were  served  each  day,  one  at  9  a.  m.  and  one 
at  i  or  2  p.  m.  The  daily  allowance  of  food  was  one  quart 
of  meal,  which  was  given  from  March  i  till  October  I,  one- 
half  a  pound  of  meat,  and  one  pint  of  molasses  a  week  for 
each  adult.  Sweet  potatoes  were  given  from  October  to 
March  instead  of  meal,  and  peas  were  allowed  in  planting 
time.  There  was  a  regular  allowance  of  tobacco.  The 
meals  were  prepared  by  the  cooks  and  sent  to  the  field  ready 
cooked.  Milk  was  furnished  at  the  cook's  place.  The 
tasks  were  light,  and  most  of  them  were  finished  by  2  p.  m. 


86  Slavery  in  the  State  of  North  Carolina.  [402 

After  they  were  done  the  slaves  might  do  what  they  liked. 
They  usually  slept  or  went  fishing.  Among  themselves  the 
slaves  were  immoral,  but,  generally  speaking,  there  were 
no  illicit  relations  between  them  and  the  white  men.  The 
white  boys  were  sometimes  intimate  with  the  housemaids. 
The  slaves  went  to  Sunday  School,  and  the  owners  of  this 
and  the  adjoining  farms  paid  a  Methodist  preacher  to 
preach  to  them  once  a  month."  But  my  informant  saw  but 
small  results  in  the  field  hands.  The  negroes  were  con- 
tented and  happy  among  themselves,  if  let  alone  by  out- 
side influences.  The  owner  always  counted  on  their  stealing 
and  took  no  notice  of  small  offenses.  They  were  not 
allowed  to  go  off  the  plantation,  except  by  special  permis- 
sion. They  were  not  allowed  to  buy  whiskey,  but  occa- 
sionally the  master  would  give  it  to  them,  and  it  was  a  race 
trait  that  all  of  them,  men,  women  and  children,  liked  it. 
Under  the  care  of  his  owner  the  slave's  health  was  good, 
much  better  than  it  is  now.  Slave  mothers  frequently 
neglected  their  children,  while  for  the  children  of  the  whites 
they  manifested  great  affection.  This  last  point  is  often 
corroborated.  Said  another  gentleman :  "I  have  often  seen 
the  slave  women  come  from  the  fields  to  the  house  of  the  old 
woman  who  took  care  of  the  small  children  during  the  day, 
take  their  babies  in  their  arms,  nurse  them,  and  put  them 
down  without  the  least  show  of  affection." 

"Negro  slavery,"  continued  the  gentleman  whose  state- 
ments I  was  just  quoting,  "was  profitable  in  producing  rice, 
cotton  and  turpentine.  One  good  hand  could  thus  make 
in  rice  from  $300  to  $400  a  year  above  his  expenses,  and  in 
turpentine  he  could  make  as  much  as  $1000  a  year.  On  the 
farm  in  question  $10,000  a  year  was  cleared  in  bank  from 
the  rice  crop.  When  masters  made  no  profit  it  was  because 
the  negroes  were  not  properly  cared  for.  Few  of  the  old 
slaveholders  had  runaway  negroes.  These  negroes  usually 
afflicted  people  who  had  recently  begun  to  have  slaves,  par- 
ticularly Northern  men  who  had  married  and  settled  in  the 
South.  These  people  did  not  understand  the  negro,  and 


403]          Industrial  and  Social  Relations  of  Slavery.  87 

expected  too  much  from  him.  A  man  who  was  cruel  to  his 
negroes  was  not  highly  respected  in  the  community  by  the 
best  people.  An  evidence  of  the  solicitude  of  the  good  mas- 
ters for  their  slaves  was  the  difficulty  which  the  authorities 
experienced  in  getting  slaves  hired  to  them  to  construct  forti- 
fications at  the  outbreak  of  the  war.  Masters  would  not  trust 
their  slaves  in  the  hands  of  the  officers.  Among  the  promi- 
nent characteristics  of  the  negro,"  concludes  my  informant, 
"were  no  gratitude,  no  resentment  and  a  deep  love  of  home." 
By  the  side  of  this  statement  I  am  fortunately  able  to  place 
the  account  of  slave  life  on  the  plantation  of  a  well-to-do 
farmer  of  the  central  part  of  the  State.  The  farmer  was  a 
well-known  Baptist  preacher,  and  the  account  is  from  his 
son,  who  is  now  a  respected  minister  in  the  same  church. 
The  locality  was  in  the  area  of  cotton  production,  and  on 
the  farm  were  from  forty  to  fifty  slaves.  The  narrator  says : 

I  never  saw  or  knew  [my  father]  to  whip  [a  slave]  save  sometime 
to  correct  a  child  for  some  evil,  and  then  the  whipping  was  light.  He 
never  overworked  them,  for  I  was  for  a  number  of  years  foreman  of 
eight  or  ten  plows.  They  started  to  work  when  I  started;  when  I 
rested  they  rested;  when  I  stopped  at  evening  they  stopped;  when  I 
got  a  holiday  they  got  one.  They  ate  what  I  ate,  though  at  different 
tables.  Never  a  day's  ration  was  issued  to  any  of  them.  They  were 
well  housed  and  were  allowed  to  use  all  the  firewood  they  needed 
from  the  same  yard  from  which  the  white  family  got  its  own  supply. 
They  were  well  shod  and  clothed,  wearing  the  same  kind  of  goods  I 
used  on  the  farm— all  home-made.  In  winter  all  the  slaves,  from 
the  youngest  to  the  oldest,  wore  woollens.  My  father  retained  two 
of  the  best  physicians  in  the  county  to  give  them  any  needed  atten- 
tion, the  same  as  his  family  had.  He  gave  each  year  to  each  slave 
large  enough  to  work  a  "patch  of  ground"  and  the  time  to  work  it,  in 
order  that  each  might  have  some  money  of  his  own  to  spend  as  he 
chose.  The  breeding  women  he  was  always  careful  should  never 
be  worked  too  hard  or  in  any  way  strained.  When  any  of  the  slave 
children  were  very  sick  they  were  brought  into  the  house  of  the 
white  family  and  there  attended  as  one  of  the  white  children.  He 
always  provided  for  them  to  go  to  church  on  Sunday,  allowing  them 
to  use  the  farm  teams  when  necessary.  They  were  invited  to  family 
prayers  in  the  room  of  my  parents.  He  often  urged  his  children  to 
read  the  Bible  to  them  in  their  own  houses,  for  each  slave  family  had 


88  Slavery  in  the  State  of  North  Carolina.  [404 

a  separate  home,  which,  in  the  main,  was  more  comfortable  than 
three-fourths  of  the  colored  people  now  have,  or  perhaps  nine-tenths 
of  them.  One  of  his  old  slaves  told  me  recently1  that  he  has  never 
been  as  happy  or  well  provided  for  since  he  has  been  free  as  he 
was  while  a  slave.  Much  more  I  could  say,  but  this  is  perhaps 
enough.  I  state  the  above  on  my  honor  as  a  Christian  minister. 
P.  S. — He  never  allowed  his  sons  to  whip  any  of  the  field  hands. 

In  a  further  communication  the  same  gentleman  says  of 
slavery  as  an  institution: 

It  never  paid  my  father,  only  by  the  increase  of  his  slaves.  His 
land  was  poor  and  this  may  have  been  the  reason  why  he  never  made 
any  money  by  it  only  as  above  stated.  He  never  kept  any  account 
of  debtor  and  creditor  in  running  his  farm.  I  was  very  well  acquainted 
over  the  county  in  ante  bellum  days  and  knew  of  but  one  or  two  par- 
ties who  failed  to  clothe  well  and  treat  well  their  slaves.  Those  par- 
ties, like  some  of  this  day,  never  had  a  good  set  of  harness,  or  good 
stock  or  farm  tools.  In  all  my  section  of  the  county  I  knew  of  no 
whites  who  did  not  own  some  land  and  have  their  own  homes.  I 
knew  but  one  free  negro,  a  woman,  and  she  lived  with  my  father. 
She  was  a  housemaid  and  worked  for  her  victuals  and  clothes. 

The  difference  between  the  conditions  of  slaves  in  North 
and  South  Carolina  is  illustrated  graphically  in  the  follow- 
ing statement  of  a  negro  whom  Mr.  Olmsted  met  in  South 
Carolina  about  1855. 2  The  negro  was  free,  and  with  his 
son  had  come  from  Rockingham  County,  N.  C.,  to  peddle 
out  two  wagon  loads  of  tobacco  in  eastern  South  Carolina. 
Said  the  old  man  in  the  course  of  the  conversation : 

"Fac'  is,  master,  'pears  like  wite  folks  doan  ginerally  like  niggars 
in  dis  country;  dey  doan  ginerally  talk  so  to  niggars  like  as  do  in  my 
country;  de  niggars  ain't  so  happy  heah;  'pears  like  the  wite  folks  is 
kind  o'  different,  somehow." 

"Well,  I've  been  thinking  myself  the  niggers  did  not  look  so  well 
here  as  they  did  in  North  Carolina  and  Virginia;  they  are  not  so  well 
clothed,  and  they  don't  appear  so  bright  as  they  do  there." 

"Well,  massa,"  was  the  answer,  "Sundays  dey  is  mighty  well 
clothed,  dis  country;  'pears  like  dere  ain't  nobody  looks  better  Sun- 
days dan  dey  do.  But,  Lord  !  working  days,  seems  like  dey  had  no 

JThis  narrative  was  sent  me  in  1896. 

*"  Journey  to  the  Seaboard  Slave  States,"  pp.  389-393. 


405]          Industrial  and  Social  Relations  of  Slavery.  89 

close  dey  could  keep  on  'em  at  all,  master.  Dey  is  almost  naked 
wen  dey's  at  work,  some  un  'enl.  Why,  master,  up  in  our  country 
de  wite  folks,  why  some  un  'em  has  ten  or  twelve;  dey  doan  hev  no 
real  big  plantations  like  dey  has  heah,  but  some  un  'em  has  ten  or 
twelve  niggars,  maybe,  and  dey  juss  lives  and  talks  along  wid  'em. 
If  dey  gits  a  niggar  and  he  doan  behave  himself,  dey  won't  keep  him; 
dey  juss  tell  him,  sar,  he  must  look  up  anudder  master,  and  if  he  doan 
find  himself  one,  I  tell  'ou,  wen  the  trader  cum  along,  dey  sell  him 
and  he  totes  him  away.  Dey  always  sell  off  all  de  bad  niggars  out 
of  our  country;  dat's  de  way  all  de  bad  niggar  and  all  dem  no-account 
niggar  keep  a  comin'  down  heah;  dat's  de  way  on't,  master." 

To  this,  which  is  offered  only  for  what  it  is  worth,  add  the 
statement  of  Mr.  Olmsted  himself:  "So  far  as  I  have 
observed,"  he  says,  "slaves  show  themselves  worthy  of  trust 
most  where  their  masters  are  most  considerate  and  liberal 
to  them.  Far  more  so,  for  instance,  on  the  small  farms  in 
North  Carolina  than  on  the  plantations  of  Virginia  and 
South  Carolina."1 

Here  we  have  three  pictures,  more  or  less  complete,  of 
slave  life  ( i )  on  a  fertile  farm  in  the  East,  under  conditions 
of  extensive  farming,  (2)  on  a  large  farm  in  the  central  part 
of  the  State,  and  (3)  on  the  small  farms  of  the  western  part 
of  the  State.  I  must  believe  that  each  picture  is  given  fairly, 
so  far  as  it  goes.  All  show  that  slavery  in  North  Carolina 
was  not  so  harsh  as  elsewhere.  To  this  conclusion  I  may 
add  the  positive  evidence  of  Mr.  Olmsted.  He  says :  "The 
aspect  of  North  Carolina  with  regard  to  slavery  is,  in  some 
respects,  less  lamentable  than  that  of  Virginia.  There  is  not 
only  less  bigotry  upon  the  subject  and  more  freedom  of 
conversation,  but  I  saw  here,  in  the  institution  more  of  the 
patriarchal  than  in  any  other  State.  The  slave  more 
frequently  appears  as  a  family  servant — a  member  of  his 
master's  family,  interested  with  him  in  the  fortune,  good  or 
bad.  This  is  the  result  of  less  concentration  of  wealth  in 
families  or  individuals  *  *  *  Slavery  thus  loses  much 
of  its  inhumanity.  It  is  still  questionable,  however,  if,  as 

^'Journey  to  the  Seaboard  Slave  States,"  p.  447. 


90  Slavery  in  the  State  of  North  Carolina.  [406 

the  subject  race  approaches  civilization,  the  dominant  race 
is  not  proportionately  detained  in  its  progress."1 

I  am  able  also  to  publish  the  following  from  a  gentleman 
of  great  intelligence  and  humanity,  who  was  intimately 
connected  by  birth  and  association  with  the  most  prominent 
people  of  the  State.  He  says : 

I  did  not  like  the  institution  of  slavery,  but  I  wish  you  to  know  : 

(1)  That  while  the  laws  were  severe  the  natural  amiability  of  the 
people  tempered  the  administration  of   them.      I  never  whipped  a 
grown  up  slave  in  my  life,  nor  did  my  father,  nor  brothers;  and  such 
families  were  the  rule  and  not  the  exception.     Nor  did  I  ever  witness 
any  of  the  scenes  of  barbarity  so  much  spoken  of.     Although  a  large 
slaveholder,  and   raised   among   slaveholders,  I    never   saw  a  grown 
person  punished  in  my  life.     By    grown   person  I  mean   fifteen  and 
sixteen  years  old  and  upwards.     The  separation  of  husband  and  wife, 
parent  and  young  child,  were  not  common.     My  family  never  did  it, 
nor  did  any  of  the  families  known  to  me,   and    I    am    sure    that    the 
great  majority   of    families  in    North    Carolina  would  not  allow  it. 

(2)  To  balance  the  cases  of  barbarity  I  wish   you   to  remember  that 
the   wives   and  other  dependents   of  slaves  were   protected   by  the 
owners  from  brutality  on  the  part  of  their  slave-husbands,  etc.     The 
awful,  horrible  brutality  of  drunken  husbands  and  fathers  as  seen  in 
England,  and  the  cities  of  the  North  was  not  allowed  in  the  South. 

(3)  You  should  not  attribute   to   slaves    the   fine   feelings  of  whites. 
They  had    recently    been    savages.      Separation    of    children   from 
parents,  etc.,  was  not  to  them  what  it  is  to  whites.     But  there  was  in 
practice  no  more  separation  than  in   New   England  families,  whose 
children  as  a  rule  scatter  over  the  whole  face  of  the  earth.     (4)  The 
sum  of  misery  was  no  greater  among  them  practically  than  among 
the  laboring  classes  in  free  countries.     You  may  not  believe  all  this, 
but  I  hope  that  it  will  be  within  your  plan   to  mention   that   slave- 
owners claim  this. 

On  the  subject  of  mulattoes  the  same  correspondent  writes: 
The  number  of  mulattoes  must  not  be  held  to  prove  correspond- 
ing licentiousness  on  the  part  of  the  whites.     Many  of  them  were 
descended  from  Indians  and  many  were  descended  from  mulattoes 
lawfully  married.     '  The  mulattoes  were  employed  in  towns 

and  were  hence  more  observed.     I  have  seen  great  plantations  with 
not  one  of  them — all  black. 

If  I  were  defending1  a  side  in  the  never  ended  controversy 
about  the  treatment  of  slaves  by  their  masters,  it  would  only 
^'Journey  to  the  Seaboard  Slave  States,"  p.  367. 


407]          Industrial  and  Social  Relations  of  Slavery.  91 

be  necessary  to  point  out  here  that  the  essence  of  the  misery 
of  slavery  in  the  South  and  elsewhere  was  not  physical 
suffering,  however  frequently  or  infrequently  that  may  have 
occurred,  but  the  mental  and  spiritual  wretchedness  that 
follow  a  loss  of  liberty.  If  you  deny  the  rights  of  man  to 
the  negro  slaves  you  cut  the  heart  out  of  the  anti-slavery 
argument.  By  the  side  of  the  above  testimony  I  shall  place 
some  statements  from  an  unpublished  book1  of  Dr.  Eli  W. 
Caruthers,  of  Greensboro,  N.  C,  well  known  as  the  author  of 
some  valuable  volumes  relating  to  the  history  of  the  State. 
For  events  he  claimed  to  know  about  he  was  the  best  kind  of 
authority.  Speaking  of  beating  slaves  cruelly,  he  said:  "I 
have  known  a  number  [of  instances]  myself  in  which 
nobody  in  the  neighborhood  had  any  doubt  that  the  death 
of  the  slave  was  caused  by  the  severity  of  his  treatment,  but 
no  attempt  was  made  to  punish  the  cruel  perpetrators  of  the 
deeds."2  The  conjugal  and  parental  instincts  in  the  slaves 
were  lessened  on  account  of  the  frequent  breaking  of  family 
ties  by  masters.  "I  have  known  some  instances,"  said  he, 
"in  which  [the  slave  family]  have  been  permitted  to  live  on 
in  great  harmony  and  affection  to  an  advanced  age,  but 
such  instances,  so  far  as  my  observations  have  gone,  have 
been  'like  angels'  visits,  few  and  far  between.'  Generally,  in 
a  few  weeks  at  most,  they  have  been  separated,  sold  off 
under  the  hammer  like  other  stock  and  borne  away  to  a 
returnless  distance."3  An  evil  result  of  this  condition  of 
affairs  was  that  the  negroes  did  not  regard  marriage  as 
strictly  as  they  ought.  They  married  carelessly  and 
separated  easily.  The  result  was  much  licentiousness.  A 
few  Christian  owners  did  what  they  could  to  prevent  the 
separation  of  their  married  slaves,  but  after  their  deathz  if 
not  before,  the  slaves  were  sold  for  debt  or  to  satisfy  less 
scrupulous  heirs.4  In  his  own  congregation  was  an  excel- 


x" American  Slavery  and  the  Immediate  Duty  of  Slaveholders." 
See  the  author's  "Anti-Slavery  Leaders,"  p.  56. 
2 Ibid.,  p.  282.  slt>id.,  p.  299.  *  Ibid.,  p.  307. 


92  Slavery  in  the  State  of  North  Carolina.  [408 

lent  man  and  wife,  both  slaves,  who  were  very  fond  of  one 
another  and  of  their  children.  Their  master  died  in  debt. 
Their  eldest  daughter  was  sold  to  a  speculator,  and  other 
children  were  also  sold.  The  honest  parents  were  heart- 
broken and  succumbed  under  their  sorrow.  "I  could  fill 
a  volume  with  similar  instances,"  exclaimed  the  indignant 
writer.1 

From  an  intelligent  gentleman,  who  was  a  large  planter 
in  the  eastern  part  of  the  State,  I  have  the  following : 

Slaves  were  generally  fed  three  times  a  day;  but  I  knew  several 
men  who  fed  only  twice  a  day.  I  practised  medicine  on  many  plan- 
tations and  never  found  negroes  that  were  so  badly  fed  that  it  inter- 
fered with  my  treatment.  A  few  people  stinted  their  children  and 
their  slaves  also.  Usually  the  slave  fared  as  well  as  the  child, 
relatively  speaking.  If  any  difference  was  made  it  was  in  favor  of 
the  slave,  who  was  property.  I  knew  a  few  people  who  treated  slaves 
badly.  Such  masters  were  brutal  by  nature.  The  morality  of  the 
negro  was  greater  then  than  now.  One  fault,  however,  was  the 
putting  of  more  than  one  family  into  one  room.  This  was  not 
unusual  on  plantations.  The  profit  to  the  employer  of  the  labor  of 
the  slave  was  perhaps  greater  than  that  of  the  negro  freeman  to-day. 
The  negro  pays  in  a  region  where  the  ground  has  to  be  stirred  steadily; 
but  he  does  not  pay  in  a  grass  or  grain  country.  He  has  not  enough 
of  the  faculty  of  direction  for  the  latter.  The  negro  does  not  want 
or  need  free  circulation  of  air  in  his  living  quarters.  As  a  rule  he 
sleeps  in  badly  ventilated  apartments  and  seems  to  suffer  no  ill  effects. 
This  is  a  conclusion  from  my  experience  as  a  physician.  They 
always  sleep  with  their  heads  covered  up.  Nearly  all  like  the  taste 
of  whiskey. 

From  the  same  source  I  am  able  to  give  an  incident, 
piteous  as  it  is,  but  which  from  the  trustworthy  and  direct 
source  from  which  it  comes  to  me  I  am  not  able  to  doubt. 
It  illustrates  most  touchingly  the  hardships  which  came 
from  breaking  the  Africans  into  slavery.  About  the  begin- 
ning of  this  ce'ntury  when  the  large  Collins  plantation  on 
Lake  Phelps,  Washington  County,  was  being  cleared  a  num- 
ber of  negroes  just  from  Africa  were  put  on  the  work.  One 

1  "American  Slavery  and  the  Immediate  Duty  of  Slaveholders." 
See  the  author's  "Anti-Slavery  Leaders,"  pp.  308  and  310. 


409]         Industrial  and  Social  Relations  of  Slavery.  93 

of  the  features  of  the  improvement  was  the  digging  of  a 
canal.  Many  of  the  Africans  succumbed  under  this  work. 
When  they  were  disabled  they  would  be  left  by  the  bank  of 
the  canal,  and  the  next  morning  the  returning  gang  would 
find  them  dead.  They  were  kept  at  night  in  cabins  on  the 
shore  of  the  lake.  At  night  they  would  begin  to  sing  their 
native  songs,  and  in  a  short  while  would  become  so  wrought 
up  that,  utterly  oblivious  to  the  danger  involved,  they  would 
grasp  their  bundles  of  personal  effects,  swing  them  on  their 
shoulders,  and  setting  their  faces  towards  Africa,  would 
march  down  into  the  water  singing  as  they  marched  till 
recalled  to  their  senses  only  by  the  drowning  of  some  of 
the  party.  The  owners  lost  a  number  of  them  in  this  way, 
and  finally  had  to  stop  the  evening  singing.  This  incident 
was  related  to  my  informant  by  the  gentleman  who  was 
overseer  on  this  plantation  when  the  incident  occurred. 


CHAPTER  V. 

THE   TRIUMPH   OF   THE   PRO-SLAVERY 
SENTIMENT. 

Slave  Conspiracies. — The  possibility  of  slave  insurrections 
was  a  source  of  the  greatest  solicitude  to  the  Southern 
whites.  This  was  heightened  about  the  close  of  the  last 
century  by  the  Haytien  outbreak  and  by  the  Nat  Turner 
attempt  in  1831.  Probably  the  slaves  as  a  body  were  more 
rebellious  a  century  ago,  when  many  of  them  were  fresh 
from  African  freedom,  and  probably  the  whites  as  time 
passed  knew  better  how  to  keep  the  slave  from  rebellion. 
Certain  it  is  that  after  the  early  decades  of  the  nineteenth 
century  there  were  no  attempts  at  conspiracy  among  the 
North  Carolina  negroes. 

After  the  reported  conspiracy  in  Beaufort  County,  just 
before  the  Revolution,  no  further  trouble  is  reported  till 
1802.  In  that  year  the  extreme  northeastern  part  of  the 
State  was  thrown  into  paroxysms  of  terror  by  reports  of  a 
slave  insurrection.  It  is  difficult  to  say  just  what  was  the 
extent  of  the  danger  there.  The  insurrection  was  at  first 
reported  to  have  gone  through  the  counties  of  Camden, 
Currituck,  Pasquotank,  Perquimons,  Chowan,  Hertford, 
Martin,  Bertie,  Beaufort  and  Washington.  At  some  places 
the  slaves  were  reported  to  have  done  great  havoc,  though 
no  definite  acts  of  outrage  were  mentioned.  Eighteen 
negroes  were  reported  to  have  been  executed  and  a  large 
number  to  have  been  arrested.  After  awhile  it  was  realized 
that  "various  extravagant  and  unfounded  reports,"  as  the 
Raleigh  Register'1-  put  it,  had  been  circulated.  On  July  27, 

'June  I,  22  and  29,  1802. 
94 


411]         The  Triumph  of  the  Pro-Slavery  Sentiment.          95 

1802,  this  paper  published  a  full  story  of  the  affair  by  a 
reliable  witness.    It  appears  that  in  May  of  this  year  a  report 
came  to  be  circulated  that  the  negroes  were  about  to  revolt. 
All    those    who    were    strongly    suspected    were    arrested. 
Excitement  ran  high,  and  mob  violence  was  averted  with 
difficulty.    The  negroes  were  at  length  frightened  into  con- 
fession.   They  admitted  that  June  10  had  been  set  for  the 
beginning  of  a  general  insurrection,  and  that  they  were 
threatened  with  death  if  they  revealed  it,  or  if  they  did  not 
join  it.     On  the  night  of  the  tenth  they  were  to  form  into 
groups  of  seven  or  eight,  fire  the  houses  of  the  whites,  kill 
the  white  males  over  six  years  old,  kill  the  women,  black 
and  white,  except  the  young  and  handsome  white  women, 
who  were  to  be  kept  for  wives,  and  the  young  negro  women, 
who  were  to  be  kept  for  waitresses.    After  finishing  in  the 
country  they  were  to  go  to  Plymouth,  N.  C,  where  they 
expected  reinforcements,  and  where  the  work  of  destruction 
was  to  be  continued.     A  few  arms  were  deposited  in  the 
swamps,  and  they  expected  to  get  others.    They  had  been 
told  by  their  leaders  that  the  rising  would  cover  the  whole 
country.    The  leaders  were  obstinate,  but  after  much  whip- 
ping they  confessed  to  the  conspiracy.    Two  of  them  were 
executed,  and  the  others  were  whipped  and  sent  to  their 
homes.    How  a  whole  State  might   be    terrified   by   such 
reports  as  were  then  in  the  air  is  seen  by  the  fact  that  false 
alarms  were  given  in  Halifax  and  Franklin  Counties,  and  in 
the  former  a  negro  was  tried  and  convicted,  but  the  com- 
munity soon  recovered  from  its  shock,  and  both  whites  and 
blacks  joined  to  petition  the  Governor  to  pardon  him.1 

In  1805  an  outbreak  of  a  similar  kind  was  reported  in 
Wayne  County,  about  which  a  correspondent  wrote  to  the 
Register*  as  follows :  "We  have  been  engaged  in  this  county 
in  the  trying  of  negroes  for  poisoning  the  whites  ever  since 
Monday  last.  One  suffered  death  at  the  stake  (was  burnt 


1  Raleigh  Register,  August  10,  17  and  24,  1802. 
2 Ibid.,  July  23  and  August  13,  1805. 


96  Slavery  in  the  State  of  North  Carolina.  [412 

alive)  on  Saturday  last,  for  poisoning  her  master,  mistress 
and  two  others.  Two  more  are  under  sentence  of  death,  and 
are  to  be  hanged  on  next  Wednesday."  Thirteen,  it  was 
said,  were  in  prison,  but  some  of  them  had  been  brought 
from  Sampson  and  Johnston  Counties.  The  accused  con- 
fessed that  the  plan  was  to  kill  the  chief  white  men,  and  to 
keep  the  others  in  slavery.  Later  advices  stated  that  one 
more  negro  was  executed  besides  the  two  mentioned,  and 
others  had  lesser  punishments,  as  whipping,  pillorying, 
transporting  and  cropping  the  ears.  In  neither  of  these 
outbreaks,  it  will  be  noticed,  is  there  mention  of  Northern 
emissaries.  Whatever  plan  there  was  among  the  negroes 
was  probably  due  either  to  their  own  suggestion  or  to  some 
negro  who  came  in  from  the  West  Indies.  Either  source 
was  not  improbable.  There  must  have  been  then,  and  per- 
haps always,  a  large  number  of  stronger  minded  slaves  who 
resented  their  situation.  Of  this  class  was  one,  "Yellow 
Jack,"  who  was  advertised  in  1812  as  a  runaway,  who  had 
been  overheard  to  say  that  "all  should  be  free,  and  that  he 
saw  no  reason  why  the  sweat  of  his  brow  should  be 
expended  in  supporting  the  extravagance  and  idleness  of 
any  man,"  or  words  to  that  effect.1 

In  1822  there  was  a  slave  rising  in  Charleston,  S.  C.,  in 
which  Denmark  Vesey  figured  as  leader.  It  had  no  effect 
on  the  slaves  of  North  Carolina,  much  to  the  relief  of  the 
whites  there.2  But  in  1821  there  had  been  trouble  of  some 
kind  in  Jones  County.  The  militia  was  called  out,  and  in 
1823  the  Assembly  allowed  its  claim  for  services.  The 
Nat  Turner  insurrection  of  1831  aroused  great  feeling  in  the 
State,  and  this  was  chiefly  responsible  for  the  state  of  terror 
that  possessed  the  adjacent  counties  immediately  thereafter, 
when  news  was  circulated  of  a  similar  conspiracy  in  Samp- 
son and  Duplin.  The  terror  spread  as  far  as  Wake,  and 
even  Raleigh  was  put  into  a  state  of  defense,  even  the  old 


Raleigh  Register,  June  5,  1812. 

1  Ibid.,  August  20,  and  September  6,  13  and  1822. 


413]         The  Triumph  of  the  Pro-Slavery  Sentiment.          97 

men  past  the  militia  age  volunteering  for  service.  Johnston 
County  called  on  Raleigh  for  ammunition  and  received  a 
supply.  The  report  stated  that  seventeen  families  had  been 
murdered  by  the  slaves.  When  it  was  reported  in  Hills- 
borough  that  Raleigh  was  in  imminent  danger  the  former 
place  at  once  raised  a  military  company  and  sent  it  to  the 
latter.  On  careful  investigation  the  reports  were  found  to 
have  been  much  exaggerated.  It  seems  that  a  free  negro 
had  revealed  a  concerted  plan  in  Duplin,  Sampson,  New 
Hanover,  Wayne  and  Lenoir  Counties  for  the  negroes  to 
rise  on  October  4,  1831,  march  to  Wilmington,  where  they 
expected  to  get  arms  and  recruits.  Whatever  plan  there 
was,  no  whites  were  harmed.  Twelve  alleged  leaders  were 
taken  and  shot,  and  three  others  were  hanged  in  Duplin, 
and  the  people  were  restored  to  confidence.  In  Wilming- 
ton the  excitement  had  been  painful.  At  one  time  it  was 
reported  that  the  infuriated  blacks  had  reached  a  point  two 
miles  from  the  city.  The  whole  available  population  was 
put  under  arms.1  When  men  were  so  carried  away  by  the 
prevailing  fear  as  to  credit  such  reports  as  the  latter  it 
was  not  unlikely  that  some  of  their  judgments  were  wrong. 
I  have  it  on  the  authority  of  the  son  of  the  man  who  was  at 
that  time  sheriff  of  Sampson  County  that  the  negroes  exe- 
cuted for  this  crime  there  were  innocent,  and  that  he  had 
often  heard  his  father  say  as  much.  This  was  the  last 
attempted  slave  insurrection,  so  far  as  I  have  been  able  to 
learn,  in  North  Carolina.  It  is  singular  that  we  find  no 
more  periods  of  terror  from  reported  slave  insurrections 
after  the  triumph  of  the  pro-slavery  element.  It  would  be 
interesting  to  know  whether  or  not  these  frights  were  of 
political  origin. 

The  Growth  of  the  Pro-Slavery  Sentiment. — Intimately 
connected  with  the  reported  slave  conspiracies  was  the 
growth  of  a  stronger  pro-slavery  sentiment.  Each  period  of 
excitement  tended  to  weaken  the  arms  of  those  who  hoped 

Raleigh  Register,  October  15  and  21,  1831. 


98  Slavery  in  the  State  of  North  Carolina.  [414 

for  final  emancipation.  It  has  been  said  that  the  Nat  Turner 
insurrection  a'nd  the  active  campaigns  of  Garrison  and  his 
associates  turned  the  South  into  pro-slavery  advocates. 
The  statement  is  but  partly  true.  The  process  of  change  in 
sentiment  had  begun  some  time  before,  and  these  events 
only  hastened  its  culmination. 

There  was  for  some  years  before  1831  a  considerable  pro- 
slavery  sentiment  which  made  its  presence  felt  in  the  Legis- 
lature. It  was  strongest  in  the  East  where  there  were  more 
slaves.  Opposed  to  it  were  the  western  counties.  As  they 
became  more  and  more  slaveholding,  the  non-slaveholding 
element  leaving  largely  for  the  Western  States,  the  pro- 
slavery  faction  was  strengthened.  They  were,  moreover, 
a  party  of  action  and  they  drew  young  men.  Those  who 
hoped  for  emancipation  had  no  plan  of  action.  They  only 
awaited  for  some  door  to  be  opened  to  effect  their  hopes. 
They  could  not  approve  of  the  procedure  of  the  abolition- 
ists in  the  North.  They  realized  that  latent  public  opinion 
in  the  South  was  such  that  it  would  be  folly  to  argue  against 
slavery  on  the  grounds  of  the  rights  of  man.  The  half- 
hearted opposition  they  could  make  had  no  chance  against 
the  fervid  arguments  of  the  convinced  and  enthusiastic 
supporters  of  slavery. 

The  steps  by  which  the  pro-slavery  minority  was  con- 
verted into  a  majority  are  obvious.  In  1818  Mr.  Mears,  of 
New  Ha'nover,  introduced  a  bill  to  prohibit  the  teaching 
of  slaves  to  read  and  write.  It  was  lost  on  the  second  read- 
ing.1 A  year  later  a  similar  bill  was  unanimously  rejected.2 
In  1825  a  bill  to  prevent  the  escape  of  slaves  by  assuming 
the  privileges  of  free  negroes  was  indefinitely  postponed. 
In  1825  free  negroes  were  required  to  have  license  from  the 
county  justices  to  live  in  Raleigh.  Licenses  were  given  to 
those  only  who  could  prove  good  character.3  In  the  same 
year  the  Governor  in  his  annual  message  referred  sarcasti- 

1  Raleigh  Register,  December  18,  1818. 

"Ibid.,  December  10,  1819.  *  Ibid.,  February  18,  1825. 


415]         The  Triumph  of  the  Pro-Slavery  Sentiment.           99 

cally  to  resolutions  of  the  Ohio  Legislature  in  regard  to 
abolition  in  the  Southern  States.  He  appreciated  the  inter- 
est of  the  non-slaveholders,  but  hoped  they  would  "shortly 
learn  and  practice  what  has  familiarly  been  termed  the 
Eleventh  Commandment,  'Let  every  one  attend  to  his  own 
concerns.'  'n  In  the  same  year  a  bill  to  restrain  improper 
conversation  between  mulattoes  and  free  negroes  on  the 
subject  of  freedom  was  lost  in  committee.2  Another  bill  to 
prevent  the  education  of  slaves,  a  bill  to  prevent  free  negroes 
from  migrating  to  North  Carolina  and  a  bill  to  forbid 
emancipation  societies  were  introduced  but  lost,  the  second 
by  a  vote  as  close  as  56  to  47.3  Evidently  the  pro-slavery 
men  were  in  earnest.* 

The  matter  became  graver  in  1826.  In  his  message  the 
Governor  referred  to  a  petition  from  the  Vermont  Legislature 
to  the  North  Carolina  government  praying  for  the  abolition 
of  slavery.  The  Northern  agitation,  he  thought,  "demanded 
from  us  a  sleepless  vigilance."  He  recommended  revision 
of  the  laws  relating  to  the  militia,  to  the  patrol,  and  to  the 
immigration  of  free  negroes.5  A  warm  debate  followed  in 
the  Senate.  Mr.  Speight,  of  Greene,  was  particularly  bel- 
ligerent. "As  a  North  Carolinian  he  felt  that  he  was  being 
imposed  upon,  and  that  there  was  an  improper  attempt  to 
dictate  to  the  Southern  States  in  what  manner  they  should 
govern  their  own  property;  and  before  he  would  tamely 
acquiesce  in  any  infringements  of  his  rights  in  this  par- 

1  Raleigh  Register,  November  29,  1825. 

*Ibid.,  December  6,  1825. 

*Ibid.,  December  30,  1825,  and  January  3,  1826. 

*  It  is  curious  to  read  the  estimate  of  the  North  Carolina  Manumission 
Society  in  1825 ,  as  to  the  sentiment  of  the  people  of  the  State  on  the  ques- 
tion of  emancipation.  They  said  that  -fa  of  the  people  wanted  immediate 
emancipation,  ^j  wanted  gradual  emancipation,  ^  wanted  emigra- 
tion, -fo  were  totally  indifferent,  f§  were  ready  to  support  schemes  of 
emancipation,  -fo  opposed  emancipation  because  impracticable,  and 
tf\5  were  bitterly  against  it.  See  Weeks:  "Southern  Quakers  and 
Slavery,"  p.  241. 

5  Raleigh  Register,  December  29,  1826. 


100  Slavery  in  the  State  of  North  Carolina.  [416 

ticular  he  would  destroy  the  constitution,  law  and  every- 
thing most  dear  to  him."  He  favored  referring  the  matter 
to  a  committee.  Mr.  Forney,  of  Lincoln,  counseled  modera- 
tion. "There  was,"  he  said,  "a  good  deal  of  sensibility 
excited  whenever  this  subject  was  mentioned,  and  a  dispo- 
sition was  felt  to  take  umbrage  when  no  offense  was 
intended."  The  Senate  referred  the  matter  to  a  committee, 
but  with  what  result  does  not  appear.1  In  the  Assembly  of 
1827-28  there  were  several  bills  in  regard  to  minor  features 
of  the  slave  controversy,  but  none  passed.  In  1828-29  a 
bill  was  introduced  to  prohibit  the  education  of  slaves  and 
on  the  recommendation  of  the  Judiciary  Committee  it  was 
rejected.  Both  here  and  in  the  following  year  other  bills 
were  introduced  to  restrict  the  activity  of  slaves,  but  they 
failed  to  pass.  It  was  only  when  the  Governor  sent  in  to 
the  Assembly  a  copy  of  an  inflammatory  circular  found  in 
North  Carolina  and  in  other  States,  that  passion  rose  to 
summer  heat  again.  Slavery,  said  the  Governor  in  his 
message,  was  a  fixity,  and  "it  would  be  criminal  in  the 
Legislature  to  attempt  to  avoid  any  responsibility  growing 
out  of  this  relation."  It  was  known  that  free  negroes  had 
helped  to  circulate  such  literature  as  this,  and  it  was  recom- 
mended that  they  be  required  to  give  bond  not  to  do  so  in  the 
future.  The  Governor's  note  of  warning  was  heard.  The 
first  bill  introduced  was  to  regulate  the  patrol.  A  committee 
of  the  House  of  Commons  was  instructed  to  inquire  into 
the  expediency  of  preventing  the  education  of  slaves,  and  a 
number  of  other  restrictive  bills  and  resolutions  followed 
quickly.2 

The  incendiary  publication  referred  to  was  by  one  Walker, 
of  Boston.3  I  presume  this  was  David  Walker,  the  third 
edition  of  whose  "Appeal  in  Four  Articles"  had  just  been 
issued.  This  appeal,  said  he,  was  made  to  rescue  the  negro 
from  wretchedness  in  consequence  of  slavery,  ignorance,  reli- 

1  Raleigh  Register,  January  2,  1827. 

*  Ibid.,  November  18  and  25,  and  December  2,  1830. 

8  Ibid.,  December  9,  1830. 


417]         The  Triumph  of  the  Pro-Slavery  Sentiment.         101 

gious  teachers  and  the  colonization  plan.  It  was  written  by 
a  negro  and  was  intended  to  incite  negroes  to  progress. 
They  were  urged  not  to  be  content  with  the  position  of 
menials,  but  to  educate  their  children.  The  habit  of  the 
whites  of  teaching  negro  children  in  Sunday  Schools  was 
denounced,  evidently  because  it  tended  to  make  the  negroes 
contented  with  slavery.  Garrison  reprinted  much  of  this 
pamphlet  in  one  of  the  early  numbers  of  the  Liberator.1  It 
was  not  openly  and  violently  incendiary,  to  be  sure,  but  it 
aimed  to  make  the  negro  discontented  with  his  lot,  and 
falling  into  the  hands  of  slaves  might  well  be  construed  to 
lead  to  any  kind  of  a  stroke  against  their  shackles.  To  the 
North  Carolina  Legislaure  it  was  a  most  serious  matter. 
The  Senate  went  into  secret  session  on  it,  the  second  secret 
session  in  the  history  of  the  State.  The  bill  to  prevent  slaves 
being  taught  to  read  and  write  was  taken  up  and  went 
through  the  Senate  on  its  second  reading  without  a  divi- 
sion. Mr.  Robert  P.  Dick,  of  Guilford,  protested 
in  the  name  of  many  of  his  constituents  who  con- 
ceived that  it  was  their  duty  to  teach  the  slaves  to  read  the 
Bible.2  The  bill  was  finally  enacted.  The  tide  had  turned. 
The  pro-slavery  minority  that  had  often  tried  to  pass  this 
bill  had  at  last  been  able  to  get  it  through.  This  faction 
was  not  only  supreme  in  the  Assembly,  but  it  soon  became 
supreme  in  society  at  large.  It  took  its  case  into  the  realm 
of  literature.  Arguments  sociological,  arguments  ethno- 
logical, arguments  psychological,  arguments  biblical,  and 
goodness  knows  how  many  others  were  hurled  at  the  slave. 
The  very  nature  of  the  controversy  engendered  passion.  The 
abolitionist  considered  slavery  a  crime  against  the  slaves. 
His  saying  so  reflected  on  the  moral  integrity  of  the  masters. 
Specifications  of  the  criminality  were  enumerated.  The 
masters  became  angrier.  The  passions  once  kindled  might 
be  relied  on  to  keep  themselves  burning.  It  would  have 

lTAe  Liberator,  April  23,  1831. 

J  Raleigh  Register,  December  9,  1830. 


102  Slavery  in  the  State  of  North  Carolina.  [418 

taken  admirable  self-control  for  either  side  to  have  stopped 
or  to  have  turned  aside  the  flood.  Said  Mr.  Julius  Rock- 
well: "It  is  no  credit  to  the  civilization  of  the  nineteenth 
century  that  slavery  could  not  have  been  abolished  without 
that  horrid  war."  It  was  slavery  itself  that  defeated  the 
humaner  forces  of  civilization.  Had  slavery  not  been 
slavery  the  minds  of  men  might  have  been  calmer  in  its 
presence,  but  then  there  had  been  no  need  of  abolition. 

After  the  triumph  of  1830  the  dominant  faction  was  more 
determined  than  ever  to  protect  slavery.  The  Governor  in 
his  message  in  1831  referred  to  the  discontent  among  the 
slaves,  and  recommended  the  organization  at  the  expense 
of  the  State  of  a  reliable  county  militia  to  be  held  ready  to 
march  at  a  moment's  notice.  His  recommendation  was  not 
adopted.  Neither  were  a  number  of  bills  brought  in  to 
restrict  the  action  of  slaves. 

In  1835  a  joint  committee  on  incendiary  literature,  of 
which  Thomas  G.  Polk  was  chairman,  reported  in  favor  of 
a  permanent  policy  in  regard  to  such  literature.  This  the 
State  could  undoubtedly  do  and  "no  other  State,  and  no 
other  portion  of  a  people  of  any  other  State  can  claim  to 
interfere  in  the  matter,  either  by  authority,  advice,  or  persua- 
sion; and  such  an  attempt,  from  whatever  quarter  it  may 
come,  must  ever  be  met  by  us  with  distrust  and  repelled  with 
indignation.  *  *  *  Whatever  institution  or  state  of 
society  we  think  proper  to  establish  or  to  permit  is  by  no 
other  State  to  be  disturbed  or  questioned.  We  enter  not 
into  the  inquiry  whether  such  institution  be  deemed  by 
another  State  just  or  expedient.  It  is  sufficient  that  we  think 
proper  to  allow  it.  *  *  *  We  do  full  justice  to  the 
general  sentiments  and  feelings  of  our  fellow-citizens  in 
other  States,  and  are  fully  aware  that  the  attempts  to  injure 
us  are  made  by  a  small  minority — composed  probably  of 
many  misguided  and  some  wicked  men,  and  that  these 
attempts  meet  with  no  favor,  but  on  the  other  hand  with 
marked  disapprobation  from  a  large  majority  of  the  com- 
munities in  which  they  are  made.  Still  it  must  be  recollected 


419]         The  Triumph  of  the  Pro-Slavery  Sentiment.         103 

that  from  the  nature  of  the  means  employed  the  danger  to 
us  is  the  same."  "We  asked  not  assistance,"  continued  the 
committee,  "to  put  down  insurrectionary  movements  among 
our  slaves,  for  should  such  occur  we  are  fully  able  to  put 
them  down  ourselves.  But  we  ask  that  our  slaves  and  our- 
selves may  be  relieved  from  external  interference.  Left  to 
themselves,  we  believe  our  slaves,  as  a  laboring  class,  are  as 
little  dangerous  to  society  as  any  in  the  world.  But  we  do 
ask,  and  think  we  have  a  right  to  demand,  that  others  do 
not  teach  them  evil  of  which  they  do  not  think  themselves." 
The  report  closed  as  follows :  "Though  we  feel  the  greatest 
attachment  for  the  Union,  and  would  do  all  in  our  power 
to  strengthen  and  perpetuate  it,  yet  we  are  not  ready  to 
surrender  those  very  rights  and  blessings  which  that  Union 
was  formed  to  protect;  and  should  the  means  now  adopted 
prove  ineffectual  in  stopping  the  progress  of  these  attacks 
on  our  peace  and  happiness,  we  would  invoke  the  aid  of  the 
other  slaveholding  States  that  there  may  be  concert  of  action 
in  taking  such  steps  as  the  occasion  may  demand."1  With 
this  report  were  some  resolutions  i'n  the  same  spirit,  and 
these  were  passed  by  a  large  majority. 

By  the  side  of  this  I  should  like  to  place  a  resolution  which 
the  Raleigh  Register,  June  4,  1836,  said  had  just  been 
adopted  by  the  New  England  Anti-Slavery  Society.  It  read : 

Resolved,  That  regarding  a  surrender  of  the  right  of  free  discus- 
sion upon  the  altar  of  Southern  slavery  as  involving  on  our  part  the 
commission  of  moral  suicide,  treachery  to  the  cause  of  civil  liberty, 
of  humility  and  guilt  before  high  Heaven,  we  hereby  pledge  ourselves 
to  one  another — to  the  oppressor  and  the  oppressed — to  our  country 
and  our  God — that,  undeterred  by  threats  or  persecution  at  common 
law,  whether  in  the  messages  of  the  governors,  the  pages  of  our 
theological  reviews,  or  the  reports  of  legislative  committees — come 
what  may,  gag  law  or  lynch  law,  we  will  never  cease  to  work 
for  its  exercise — full,  free,  and  undiminished — until  the  last  fetter 
shall  be  broken  and  slavery  and  prejudice  shall  be  buried  in  one  com- 
mon grave. 

'Raleigh  Register,  January  5,  1836. 


104  Slavery  in  the  State  of  North  Carolina.  [420 

Alas !  that  was  a  good  way  to  bury  slavery,  but  neither  the 
resolutions  of  the  North  Carolina  Assembly  nor  those  of 
the  New  England  Society  were  calculated  to  diminish  preju- 
dice. 

The  change  in  public  opinion  is  well  illustrated  by  the 
course  of  the  Raleigh  Register.  Its  editor,  Joseph  Gales,  had 
left  England  in  1794  on  account  of  a  certain  connection  with 
a  violent  pamphlet  of  a  French  republican  flavor.  His  love 
of  liberty  made  him  steadily  opposed  to  slavery.  He  was  a 
follower  of  Jefferson  and  later  on  a  Whig.  He  certainly  did 
not  represent  the  general  sentiment  on  the  slavery  question, 
but  even  the  opinions  of  his  paper  were  not  proof  against 
the  pro-slavery  impulse  of  public  thought.  In  1818  the 
Register  described  slavery  as  "a  Upas  tree  of  most  frightful 
dimensions  and  most  poisonous  qualities."  In  1825,  when 
another  paper  declared  that  the  Register  was  "very  little  in 
unison"  with  the  opinions  of  the  great  body  of  slaveholders, 
Mr.  Gales  replied : 

We  consider  slavery  an  evil,  a  great  evil,  but  one  imposed  on  us 
without  our  consent,  and  therefore  necessary,  though  we  cannot 
believe  irremediable,  hopeless  and  perpetual.  On  the  simple  ques- 
tion: "Ought  slavery  to  exist"  we  presume  but  few  persons  would 
answer  in  the  affirmative,  and  still  fewer  would  be  found  bold  enough 
to  advocate  the  practice  as  being  right  in  itself  or  to  justify  it,  except 
on  the  broad  plea  of  necessity.  That  it  would  conduce  equally  to  the 
interest  and  happiness  of  the  slaveholding  States  to  get  rid  of  this 
part  of  our  population  few  will  deny.  It  is  a  dead  weight  which 
mars  all  enterprise  and  clogs  the  wheels  of  the  political  machine. 
None  can  doubt  that  if  North  Carolina  could  give  the  whole  of 
her  colored  population  for  one-half  the  number  of  whites  she  would 
be  among  the  foremost  in  the  race  of  active  improvements  now  run- 
ning by  most  of  the  free  States.  We  hope  the  time  will  come, 
though  it  is  probably  far  distant,  when  a  better  order  of  things  will 
prevail  in  this  respect.1 

In  1830  the  Register  had  begun  to  change  its  tone.  It 
pronounced  "highly  seditious"  the  anti-slavery  articles  then 

1  Raleigh  Register,  September  20,  1825. 


421]         The  Triumph  of  the  Pro-Slavery  Sentiment.         105 

appearing  in  the  Greensboro  Patriot,  of  which  William 
Swaim  was  the  editor.  In  1835  the  Register  declared  itself 
as  follows : 

Until  recently  we  were  disposed  to  regard  the  movements  of  the 
abolitionists  with  indifference  and  contempt ;  but  it  is  folly  to  shut 
our  eyes  to  the  fact  that  they  are  rapidly  augmenting  in  numbers,  and 
that  their  zeal  and  exertion  are  increasing  in  even  greater  ratio.  By 
a  late  circular,  signed  by  Arthur  Tappan,  Lewis  Tappan,  the  Rev.  Dr. 
Cox,  etc.,  it  seems  that  they  are  determined  to  raise  $30,000  during 
the  present  year  to  be  devoted  to  printing  and  circulating  gratuitously 
inflammatory  papers  calculated  to  do  extensive  mischief.1 

Four  weeks  later  the  same  paper,  on  the  authority  of 
Lewis  Tappan,  said  that  the  abolitionists  had  printed  175,000 
abolition  circulars,  of  which  1000  had  been  destroyed  in 
Charleston.  "The  rest,"  said  Tappan,  "are  accomplishing 
the  designs  intended  throughout  the  United  States.  We 
will  persevere,  come  life  or  death.  If  any  fall  by  the  hand 
of  violence,  others  will  continue  the  blessed  work."  By  this 
time  the  Register  was  out  and  out  a  pro-slavery  organ.  This 
change  in  sentiment  in  a  most  conservative  paper — the  edi- 
torial management  of  which  remained  continually  in  the  same 
family — father  and  son — during  this  entire  period,  must 
have  been  indicative  of  a  much  stronger  popular  change.2 

Co-existent  with  the  facts  just  mentioned  there  was  a 
strong  political  side  to  this  change.  The  Whigs  were,  for 
most  of  the  period  before  the  Civil  War,  more  opposed  to 
slavery  than  the  Democrats.  They  now  found  themselves 
uncomfortably  placed  between  two  fires.  Abolitionists 
charged  them  with  favoring  slaveholders.  Pro-slavery  peo- 
ple charged  them  with  a  leaning  towards  Northern  abolition 
doctrines.  Each  charge  was  denied.  In  each  there  was  some 

'Raleigh  Register,  October  i,  1835. 

*  Sometime  before  his  death  in  1842  Joseph  Gales  went  to  live  in 
Washington  City,  leaving  the  editorial  management  of  the  paper  in 
the  hands  of  his  son.  I  can  find  no  date  for  this,  but  it  was  hardly 
so  early  as  1835.  At  that  time  the  paper  announced  at  its  head  that 
it  was  published  by  "Gales  and  Son." 


106  Slavery  in  the  State  of  North  Carolina.  [422 

show  of  truth.  Whiggery  was  already  being  dragged  into 
the  maelstrom  of  sectionalism,  which  was  destined  to  destroy 
it.  In  North  Carolina  it  did  not  dare  to  oppose  slavery.  At 
the  time  about  which  I  have  been  speaking,  another  issue 
overshadowed  all  others.  It  was  the  question  of  apportion- 
ment of  seats  in  the  Assembly.  The  Constitution  provided 
that  each  county  should  have  equal  representation.  The 
western  counties  were  larger  than  many  eastern  counties  and 
demanded  an  apportionment  of  seats  according  to  popula- 
tion. The  struggle  was  won  by  the  West,  and  the  desired 
reform  was  accomplished  by  the  constitutional  convention 
of  I835-1  This  put  a  new  complexion  on  State  politics  for  a 
few  years ;  but  as  soon  as  this  issue  was  forgotten — and  it 
was  not  long  in  doing  so — the  two  parties  were  drawn  into 
discussion  of  the  slavery  question.  It  was  in  the  campaign  of 
1840  that  the  matter  first  became  prominent.  The  Standard, 
a  Democratic  paper  at  Raleigh,  called  the  Whigs  "abolition- 
ists." The  Register,  which  was  the  leading  Whig  organ, 
charged  Van  Buren  with  favoring  negro  equality.  The 
controversy  became  warm.  The  Democrats  attacked  Mr. 
Morehead,  Whig  candidate  for  Governor,  because  he  had 
prepared  a  report  against  the  bill  to  prevent  the  instruction 
of  slaves.  The  Whigs  replied  that  Mr.  Haywood,  the  Demo- 
cratic candidate,  had  done  the  same  thing.  The  Whig  candi- 
date was  looked  upon  with  suspicion,  because  he  was  from 
Guilford  County,  where  anti-slavery  ideas  were  abundant. 
The  Whigs  replied  by  charging  that  Mr.  Saunders,  a  Demo- 
cratic ex-Congressman,  had  presented  to  Congress  a  petition 
from  the  Manumission  Society  of  Guilford  County.  When 
the  Whigs  finally  won  in  1840  the  Register  announced  the 
victory  under  the  headlines :  WHIGGERY  VICTORIOUS  !  THE 
BLACK  FLAG  OF  ABOLITION  LAID  Low ! 

After  1840  the  controversy  slept  till  1846,  when  the  Wil- 
mot   Proviso   was    introduced.      It    now    became    violent. 


the  author's  "Suffrage  in  North  Carolina,"  Report  of  the 
American  Historical  Association,  1895. 


423]         The  Triumph  of  the  Pro-Slavery  Sentiment.         107 

The  Democrats  had  the  Whigs  on  the  defensive.  The  latter 
were  forced  to  repudiate  the  action  of  the  New  England 
Whigs,  who  had  just  endorsed  the  proviso  in  a  convention 
at  Springfield,  Mass.  The  result  was  satisfactory.  The 
Whigs  were  still  strong,  and  carried  the  State  by  what  was 
then  a  substantial  majority  of  7000.  In  1848  the  controversy 
for  equal  suffrage  began,  the  Democrats  favoring  it  aiid  the 
Whigs  opposing.  It  ran  strong,  but  the  feeling  on  the 
slavery  question  was  not  allayed.  The  two  parties  vied  with 
one  another  in  denouncing  abolition. 

In  the  storm  of  feeling  which  preceded  the  compromise 
measures  of  1850,  North  Carolina  was  not  untouched.  The 
strongly  conservative  feeling  of  the  State  was  brought  into 
play,  and  the  resolutions  which  were  introduced  into  the  Leg- 
islature were  milder  than  they  would  have  been  in  some 
other  Southern  States.  On  January  16,  1849,  the 
Assembly  resolved  all  but  unanimously,  that  to  forbid  slav- 
ery in  the  District  of  Columbia  or  in  the  territories  would 
be  a  "grave  injustice  and  wrong"  and  contrary  to  the  spirit 
of  the  Constitution,  and  that  they  were  willing  to  stand  by 
the  Missouri  Compromise.  An  amendment  to  these  resolu- 
tions was  offered  by  the  House  of  Commons  and  concurred 
in  by  the  Senate,  pledging  the  State  more  strongly  than 
ever  to  the  Union  and  repudiating  "whatever  may  suggest 
even  a  suspicion  that  it  can  in  any  event  be  abandoned.  This 
amendment  was  introduced  into  the  House  by  Edward  Stan- 
ley, of  Beaufort  County,1  who  was  a  Union  man  of  the 
strongest  sort. 

In  the  session  of  1850-51  the  same  matter  came  up  again. 
A  joint  committee  was  appointed  to  act  for  the  two  Houses. 
A  report  was  prepared  and  submitted.  It  was  in  favor  of 
accepting  the  Compromise  of  1850,  but  sounded  a  note  of 
warning  in  regard  to  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law.  There  were 
many  resolutions  on  this  subject  before  the  Assembly.  One 
of  them  expressed,  perhaps,  pretty  thoroughly  the  feeling 

journal  of  the  Assembly  of  1848-49,  pp.  717  and  725. 


108  Slavery  in  the  State  of  North  Carolina.  [424 

of  most  of  the  members.  It  ran :  "Resolved,  That  we  will 
have  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law  or  fight."  Many  amendments 
were  offered  to  the  resolutions  of  the  committee,  and  an 
intricate  debate  was  just  beginning  when  the  matter  sud- 
denly dropped  out  of  the  journal  of  the  Assembly,  leaving  us 
to  guess  the  cause.  Perhaps  it  was  because  the  Assembly  was 
brought  to  realize  the  futility  of  bringing  on  a  discussion 
which  would  create  feeling  and  endanger  the  Union,  all  to 
accomplish  no  definite  end.  The  compromise  laws  had 
then  been  passed  in  Congress,  and  as  yet  the  Fugitive  Slave 
Law  had  not  been  tried.  It  was  evidently  in  the  interest  of 
good 'sense  to  say  nothing  about  the  slavery  question. 

The  last  decade  before  the  war  was  quiet  enough  so  far 
as  the  political  relation  of  slavery  was  concerned.  There  was, 
as  the  crisis  approached,  a  considerable  amount  of  sectional 
recrimination,  but  it  does  not  belong  to  the  history  of  slavery, 
but  rather  to  the  larger  history  of  the  great  sectional  strug- 
gle. In  the  meantime,  and,  indeed,  for  a  decade  and  a  half 
previously,  there  had  been  no  legislation  of  importance  which 
bore  on  slavery.  The  status  of  the  slaves  had  been  fixed  to 
the  satisfaction  of  the  masters  by  the  legislation  which  came 
closely  before  or  after  1830.  This  intermediate  period  was 
marked  by  profound  quiet  on  the  part  of  the  slaves.  The 
negroes  were  prostrate,  restrained  at  every  point  by  law.  So 
completely  were  they  subjected  that  they  gave  no  trouble 
during  the  war  that  followed.  During  this  war  it  was 
not  found  necessary  to  amend  the  law  controlling  the  con- 
duct of  slaves  at  any  vital  point.  This  quietude  of  the  slaves 
has  been  attributed  to  their  good  nature.  It  ought  to  be 
attributed  to  their  lack  of  esprit  du  corps,  their  lack  of 
organization,  and  their  fear  of  the  whites.  They  did  not 
remain  quiet  because  they  loved  slavery.  They  had  small  op- 
portunity for  rebellion.  The  counties  were  closely  defended 
by  home  guards,  embodied  from  the  old  men  and  the  youths 
and  in  each  State  till  the  end  of  the  war  there  were  easily 
accessible  bodies  of  troops  which  would  have  crushed  with 
fearful  promptitude  an  attempt  at  insurrection.  No  revolt 


425]         The  Triumph  of  the  Pro-Slavery  Sentiment.         109 

that  the  negro  could  have  made  would  have  stood  a  week. 
That  the  negroes  were  willing  enough  to  have  their  liberty, 
even  at  the  expense  of  the  lives  of  their  masters,  is  shown 
by  the  readiness  with  which  they  enlisted  into  regiments  in 
the  Union  Army,  and  by  the  desperate  courage  with  which, 
raw  as  they  were,  they  frequently  bore  themselves  in  battle 
when  under  the  leadership  of  competent  white  officers. 


AUTHORITIES. 

With  few  exceptions,  I  have  been  thrown  back  on  Quellen, 
and  of  this  class  of  material  the  pieces  have  been  varied  and 
multitudinous.  Slavery  is  unannalled  so  far  as  the  slaves 
themselves  are  co'ncerned.  I  have  been  forced  to  pick  up 
information  here  and  there  as  it  is  found  in  the  documents 
and  other  literature  of  the  white  man.  At  best  I  can  hope 
for  but  little  more  than  that  this,  and  other  works  of  mine 
on  slavery  in  North  Carolina,  may  serve  for  a  point  around 
which  many  more  facts  not  now  in  the  range  of  my  knowl- 
edge may  be  gathered,  till  at  last  the  subject  is  know'n 
through  and  through. 

My  chief  sources  of  information  have  been  laws  and  legal 
opinions.  Of  these  are : 

Laws  of  North  Carolina,  1790. 

Laws  of  North  Carolina,  1821. 

Revised  Statutes  of  North  Carolina,  1837. 

Revised  Code  of  North  Carolina,  1835. 

Journals  of  the  North  Carolina  Assembly. 

Reports  of  the  cases  in  the  North  Carolina  Supreme 
Courts. 

I  have  found  much  information  in  the  newspapers  of  the 
day,  particularly  the  Raleigh  Register,  and  the  North  Caro- 
lina Standard. 

Other  materials  of  a  more  miscellaneous  nature  are : 

Caruthers,  E.  W. :  American  Slavery  and  the  Immediate 
Duty  of  Slaveholders,  an  unpublished  manuscript  now  in 
possession  of  the  library  of  Greensboro  Female  College 
(N.  C.) 

Wightman :  Life  of  Bishop  Capers. 

Drew :  Life  of  Dr.  Thomas  Coke. 

Hawkins :  Memoir  of  Lunsford  Lane. 
110 


427]  Authorities.  Ill 

Biggs :   History  of  the  Kehuckee  Association. 

Purefoy :  History  of  the  Sandy  Creek  Association. 

Weeks :   Southern  Quakers  and  Slavery. 

Hoss :  Sketch  of  the  Life  of  Elihu  Embree.  Publications 
of  Vanderbilt  Historical  Society,  No.  2,  1897. 

Smith:   History  of  Education  in  North  Carolina. 

Olmsted :  Journey  in  the  Seaboard  Slave  States. 

Du  Bois:   The  Suppression  of  the  Slave  Trade. 

North  Carolina  Colonial  Records,  Vol.  IX. 

De  Bozt/s  Review. 

Weaver :  The  North  Carolina  Manumission  Society.  The 
Historical  Papers  of  the  Trinity  College  (N.  C.)  Historical 
Society. 

Chreitzberger :  Early  Methodism  in  Wilmington,  N.  C. 
The  first  annual  publication  of  the  Historical  Society  of  the 
North  Carolina  Conference  of  the  M.  E.  Church  South,  1897. 

Gaston,  Wm. :  Address  at  Commencement  at  the  Univer- 
sity of  North  Carolina,  1832. 

David  Dodge  [O.  W.  Blacknall]  :  Free  Negoes  of  North 
Carolina.  The  Atlantic  Monthly,  January,  1886. 

Minutes  of  the  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church. 

Disciplines  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 

Minutes  of  the  Chowan  Baptist  Association. 

Minutes  of  the  North  Carolina  Baptist  Convention. 

McGill :  American  Slavery  as  Viewed  and  Acted  on  by  the 
Presbyterian  Church  in  America. 

"Presbyterianism  and  Slavery."  Official  document  pub- 
lished for  the  use  of  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Presby- 
terian Church  at  Pittsburg,  1836. 

Journal  of  the  North  Carolina  Episcopal  Convention — not 
complete. 

Bassett,  J.  S. :  Slavery  and  Servitude  in  the  Colony  of 
North  Carolina.  Hopkins  Studies  in  History  and  Politics, 
1896.  Anti-Slavery  Leaders  of  North  Carolina,  Ibid.,  1897. 
Suffrage  in  the  State  of  North  Carolina.  Publication  of  the 
American  Historical  Association,  1895. 


The  Early  Development  of   the 
I    Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal 

Project. 


SERIES  XVII  Nos.  9-10-1 1 

JOHNS  HOPKINS  UNIVERSITY  STUDIES 

IN 

HISTORICAL   AND    POLITICAL   SCIENCE 

HERBERT  B.  ADAMS,  Editor 


History,  is  past  Politics  and  Politics  are  present  History. — Freeman 


The  Early  Development  of  the  Chesapeake 
and  Ohio  Canal  Project. 


BY 

GEORGE    WASHINGTON    WARD,  Ph.D. 

Professor  of  History  in  Western   Maryland  College. 


THE  JOHNS  HOPKINS  PRESS,  BALTIMORE 

PUBLISHED  MONTHLY 
SEPTEM  BER-OCTOBER-NOVEMBER,   1899 


COPYRIGHT,  1899,   BY  N.  MURRAY. 


WILLIAMS    &    WILKINS    COMPANY 
BALTIMORE 


CONTENTS. 


INTRODUCTION 7 

I.     Early  Development  of  the  Trade  Route  by  Way  of  the 

Potomac 9 

II.     Gallatin's  Report  on  the  Subject  of  Internal  Improve- 
ment    19 

III.  Efforts  to  Induce  the  Federal  Government  to  Undertake 

a  System  of  Internal  Improvement 31 

IV.  Independent  Movement  for  a  Canal 39 

V.     Charter  Legislation 59 

VI.     The  Federal  Government  Assumes  Control 67 

VII.     Survey  and  Estimate  for  the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal 

by  the  United  States  Board  of  Internal  Improvement  .  73 
VIII.     The  Convention  of  1826  and  the  Report  of  Messrs.  Geddes 

and  Roberts • 81 

IX.     The  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal  as  a  National  Enter- 
prise    85 

X.     Canal  Against  Railroad 95 

XI.     In  the  Courts 101 

XII.     The  Struggle  for  Existence 107 

Conclusion in 


The  Early  Development  of  the  Chesapeake 
and  Ohio  Canal  Project. 


INTRODUCTION. 

The  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal,  as  it  exists  to-day,  lies 
on  the  north  shore  of  the  Potomac  River,  forming  a  navi- 
gable water-way  between  Georgetown,  near  the  head  of 
tide-water  in  the  Potomac,  and  Cumberland,  at  the  eastern 
base  of  the  Alleghany  Mountains,  where  Will's  Creek  joins 
the  Potomac.  The  canal  is  one  hundred  and  eighty-six 
miles  in  length,  sixty  feet  wide  at  the  surface  (with  some  ex- 
ceptions) and  six  feet  deep.  There  are  two  very  expensive 
aqueducts,  besides  many  culverts.  The  water  supply  is 
drawn  from  the  Potomac  by  means  of  six  dams  with  their 
feeders,  while  the  difference  in  level  between  Georgetown 
and  Cumberland  is  overcome  by  eighty-one  locks. 

Ground  was  broken  for  the  work  by  John  Quincy  Adams, 
then  President  of  the  United  States,  on  the  Fourth  of  July, 
1828,  the  same  day  on  which  ground  was  broken  for  the 
Baltimore  and  Ohio  Railroad,  by  the  venerable  Charles 
Carroll,  of  Carrollton.  Thus  auspiciously  begun  under  the 
patronage  of  the  United  States,  the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio 
Canal  soon  came  into  the  care  of  the  state  of  Maryland,  and 
was  not  completed  to  Cumberland  until  October,  1850, 
more  than  twenty-two  years  after  the  work  was  commenced. 
Such,  in  a  word,  is  the  origin  of  the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio 
Canal. 

"The  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal  project"  was  some- 
thing of  a  widely  different  character.  It  is  to  the  history 
of  the  project  that  this  monograph  is  chiefly  devoted.  So 


8  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal.  [432 

voluminous  are  the  materials  that  it  has  been  a  difficult 
matter  to  select  and  arrange  only  those  more  important 
facts  which  have  a  direct  bearing  upon  the  development  of 
the  "project."  The  constant  aim,  however,  has  been  to 
do  this  in  such  a  manner  as  to  show : 

I.  The  slow  process  of  evolution  through  which  the  idea 
passed;  and, 

II.  The  relation  of  the  United  States  Government  to  that 
development. 

Incidentally,  light  has  been  thrown  upon  the  cause  of 
the  failure  of  the  canal,  upon  the  historical  relation  of  the 
Baltimore  and  Ohio  Railroad  to  the  canal,  and  other  points 
not  without  their  interest.  In  proportion  as  the  purpose  of 
the  paper  has  been  accomplished  it  will  appear  that  the 
Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal  project  was  launched  upon  the 
tidal  wave  of  the  "American  System,"  dashed  to  pieces  by 
the  sudden  recession  of  that  wave,  and  left  stranded  on  the 
southern  shore  of  Maryland.  Deserted  by  the  Federal 
Government,  when  no  more  than  twenty  miles  of  the  canal 
had  been  opened  to  navigation,  Maryland  furnished  the  mil- 
lions with  which  the  work  was  finally  completed  to  Cum- 
berland. 


CHAPTER  I. 

EARLY  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  TRADE  ROUTE 
BY  WAY  OF  THE  POTOMAC. 

The  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal  project  had  its  origin 
in  the  abiding  conviction  that  the  shortest  route  from  the 
seaboard  to  the  Ohio  Valley;  that,  namely,  by  way  of  the 
Potomac  and  Monongahela  Rivers,  should  and  would  be- 
come the  great  thoroughfare  of  trade  and  communication 
between  the  regions  east  and  west  of  the  Alleghany  Moun- 
tains. The  importance,  amounting  almost  to  necessity,  of 
establishing  and  maintaining  such  a  route  was  very  early 
perceived.  The  Ohio  Company  was  organized  in  I748,1 
primarily  to  promote  the  settlement  of  the  Ohio  Valley,2 
and,  incidentally,  to  trade  with  the  Indians.3  So  early  as  1749 
the  boats  of  the  Ohio  Company  had  ascended  the  Potomac 
from  the  head  of  the  Great  Falls  ;*  and  in  1750  a  storehouse 
was  built  at  the  point  where  Will's  Creek  falls  into  the  north 
branch  of  the  Potomac,  on  the  site  of  the  present  city  of 
Cumberland.5  Trade  flourished  from  the  start,  and  in  1752, 
the  company  having  determined  to  make  Will's  Creek  a  per- 
manent trading  post,  a  second  storehouse  was  built.  So 
rapid  was  the  growth  of  business  at  this  point  that  a  town 
was  laid  out  with  streets,  lanes  and  squares  subdivided  into 
lots.  This  town,  which  lived  and  had  its  being  only  on  the 
surveyor's  plats,  was  named  Charlottesburg,  in  honor  of  the 

1  Winsor :  "Narrative  and  Critical  History  of  America,"  V,  570. 

2  Lowdermilk:  "History  of  Cumberland,"  26-33. 
slbid.,  31. 

4  House  Report  No.  90,  ipth  Congress,  2d  Session,  2. 
6  Lowdermilk's  "Cumberland,"  29.     Fort  Cumberland  erected  on 
this  site,  1754-5,  89. 


10  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal.  [434 

Princess  Charlotte  Sophia,  afterwards  Queen  of  George  III. 
Beyond  Charlottesburg  there  was  nothing  worthy  the  name 
of  road.1  The  English  had  but  lately  (1744)  acquired  a 
doubtful  title  to  any  territory  west  of  the  Alleghanies  ;2 
and  when  Christopher  Gist,  the  surveyor  for  the  Ohio  Com- 
pany, left  Will's  Creek,  in  1749,  to  explore  the  Ohio  Valley, 
he  found  only  an  Indian  trail  leading  thence  to  the  West.* 
Over  this  same  route  Washington  made  a  temporary  road* 
to  accommodate  the  little  army  of  two  hundred  Virginians 
which  he  led  against  the  French  in  the  summer  of  I754-5 
Later,  when,  in  1755,  Major-General  Braddock,  with  his 
two  regiments  of  regulars,  came  to  the  assistance  of  the 
Virginians,  the  route  by  which  he  should  proceed  from  his 
headquarters  at  Alexandria  was  decided  upon  economic 
rather  than  upon  military  principles,  a  circumstance  which 
had  more  to  do  with  the  failure  of  the  expedition  than  did 
the  stubbornness  of  Braddock.  It  was  not  the  blindness  of 
Braddock,  but  too  great  eagerness  on  the  part  of  Virginia 
to  improve  the  Potomac  route  that  is  responsible  for  the 
overthrow  of  an  ably  conducted  expedition.6 

It  was  decided  by  a  council  of  the  governors  of  the  colo- 
nies held  by  invitation  of  General  Braddock  at  Alexandria, 
Virginia,  April  14,  1755,  that  Braddock  should  lead  the 
expedition  against  Fort  Duquesne.  This  expedition,  which 
was  to  proceed  from  Alexandria,  would  have  choice  of  two 
routes.  Braddock  might  lead  his  men  through  Pennsyl- 
vania, or  through  Maryland  by  way  of  the  Potomac  River 
and  Fort  Cumberland.  The  route  by  way  of  Pennsylvania 
offered  the  advantages  of  a  settled  country  with  roads 
already  made.  That  by  way  of  the  Potomac  led  through  a 
rugged,  mountainous  region  with  scarcely  a  settlement  be- 
yond a  point  eighty  miles  east  of  Fort  Cumberland,  while 
west  of  Fort  Cumberland  there  was  not  even  a  road  worthy 
of  the  name.  If,  then,  the  Potomac  route  should  be  chosen 

iLowdermilk's  "Cumberland,"  30,  31.      2  Ibid.,  31,  32.     3  Ibid,  28. 
*  Winsor :  "The  Mississippi  Basin,"  279. 

5  Winsor :  "Narrative  and  Critical  History,"  V,  493-4. 

6  Parkman :  "Montcalm  and  Wolfe,"  I,  196,  214. 


435]  Early  Development  of  Trade  Route.  11 

it  would  be  necessary  to  make  a  military  road  for  a  distance 
of  more  than  one  hundred  miles  through  the  Alleghany 
Mountains  before  the  expedition  could  reach  Fort  Du- 
quesne. 

This  single  difficulty,  had  there  been  no  others,  should 
have  settled  the  question  decisively  in  favor  of  the  Penn- 
sylvania route,  which  offered  comparatively  easy  roads  with 
ample  provisions.  But  the  very  consideration  which,  from 
a  military  point  of  view  condemned  the  Potomac  route, 
was  precisely  that  which,  from  the  Ohio  Company's  point 
of  view,  made  it  so  important  to  adopt  that  route ;  the  fact, 
namely,  that  Fort  Cumberland  and  Gist's  settlement  on  the 
Ohio  were  separated  by  more  than  one  hundred  miles  of 
rugged,  roadless  mountain  wilderness.  Because  of  the  profit 
which  the  consequent  improvement  of  the  Potomac  route 
would  bring  to  the  company,  one  of  its  stockholders,  John 
Hanbury,  of  Pennsylvania,  is  said  to  have  "cajoled  the  Duke 
of  Newcastle  into  ordering"  the  Potomac  route.  Governor 
Dinwiddie,  of  Virginia,  was  also  interested  in  the  Ohio  Com- 
pany and  for  that,  as  well  as  other  reasons,  used  his  influ- 
ence for  the  Potomac  route.1 

How  difficult  and  tedious  the  making  of  this  road  proved 
to  be ;  how  ample  time  was  allowed  the  French  to  concen- 
trate their  forces  at  Fort  Duquesne  and  to  become  fully 
acquainted  with  all  the  plans  and  movements  of  Braddock, 
so  as  to  make  sure  of  his  defeat,  needs  no  rehearsal  here. 
It  is  worth  while,  however,  to  remark  that  already,  in  1755, 
the  trade  route  by  way  of  the  Potomac  had  become  a  ques- 
tion of  sufficient  importance  to  influence  the  decision  of 
national  and  military  affairs.  That  trade  route  must  be 
held  responsible  for  the  most  serious  disaster  suffered  by  the 
victor  in  a  struggle  for  the  possession  of  a  continent. 

The  apparent  compensation  for  the  enormous  obstacles 
to  be  met  beyond  Fort  Cumberland  was  the  bare  possibility 

1  Winsor :  "Narrative  and  Critical  History  of  America,"  V,  495. 
"The  Mississippi  Basin,"  356-60. 


12  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal.  [436 

that  supplies  might  be  forwarded  by  boat  as  far  as  the  head- 
waters of  the  Potomac.  This  possibility  was  promptly  can- 
vassed by  Governor  Sharpe,  of  Maryland,  and  Sir  John 
St.  Clair,  who,  in  January,  1755,  made  a  careful  examina- 
tion for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  the  navigability  of  the 
Potomac  between  Fort  Cumberland  and  Alexandria.  They 
reported  that  the  river  channel  would  be  opened  to  navi- 
gation throughout  by  the  removal  of  the  rocks  which  form 
the  Great  Falls.  St.  Clair  thought  this  might  be  done  at 
least  sufficiently  to  allow  the  passage  of  flat-bottom  boats  ; 
but  the  experiment  was  not  made.1 

During  the  French  and  Indian  War  the  operations  of  the 
Ohio  Company  were  practically  suspended.  At  the  close 
of  the  war  the  company  itself  was  suspended,  or  rather 
merged  into  the  Grand  Company.2  The  Grand  Com- 
pany came  to  nothing,  and  no  further  attempts  were  made 
to  develop  the  Potomac  route  till  the  War  for  Independence 
had  been  fought  and  won.3 

The  tendency  of  commercial  and  economic  considerations 
to  take  precedence,  and  to  determine  the  more  distinctly 
political  affairs  of  a  country  has  rarely  been  more  apparent 
than  in  the  history  of  the  Potomac  trade  route.  Economic 
considerations  led  to  the  choice  of  that  route  for  Braddock's 
expedition,  and  the  road  was  actually  opened  to  the  Ohio 
by  his  forces.  Economic  questions  again  came  to  the  front 
immediately  upon  the  close  of  the  Revolutionary  War,  and 
efforts  were  at  once  made  to  improve  the  commerce  of  the 
new  country.4 

In  the  South,  Washington  strove  to  rouse  Virginia  and 
Maryland  to  the  importance  of  opening  the  Potomac  for 
navigation  as  far  as  Cumberland.  From  that  point  west 
he  thought  that  the  two  states  should  jointly  maintain  'a 
road.5  In  the  line  of  these  suggestions  a  joint  committee 

1  Lowdermilk :  "History  of  Cumberland,"  103. 

2  Ibid.,  33- 

3  House  Reports,  igth  Congress,   ist  Session,  Report  No.  228,  4. 

4  "Narrative  and  Critical  History  of  America,"  VII,  219,  220. 

5  Pickell :  "A  New  Chapter  in  the  Life  of  Washington,"  46. 


437]  Early  Development  of  Trade  Route.  13 

was  appointed  by  Maryland  and  Virginia  to  consider  plans 
for  improving  the  navigation  of  the  Potomac.  The  com- 
mittee, with  Washington  as  its  presiding  officer,  met  in 
December,  1784.  The  result  of  that  meeting  was  the  Po- 
tomac Company. 

Incorporated  by  Virginia  and  confirmed  by  Maryland, 
the  company  was  organized  at  Alexandria,  Va.,  on  the  I7th 
of  May,  1785,  with  George  Washington  as  president.  The 
first  and  chief,  if  not  the  only,  work  then  expected  of  the 
company  was  to  clear  the  channel  of  the  Potomac  for  navi- 
gation as  far  as  Cumberland.  The  extension  of  the  route 
from  that  point  to  the  Ohio  by  means  of  a  road  would  open 
easy  and  rapid  communication  between  the  rapidly  filling 
West  and  the  seaboard,  thus  establishing  a  bond  of  eco- 
nomic interest  as  well  as  one  of  friendship  between  these 
two  sections  of  the  infant  republic.1 

From  this  it  is  plain  that  Washington  foresaw  at  least  so 
long  ago  as  1784  what  has  long  been  to  us  matter  of  his- 
tory, namely,  that  the  commercial  center  to  which  a  people 
habitually  look  must,  under  ordinary  economic  conditions, 
become  the  centre  of  power  which  controls  political  action 
and  to  a  great  extent  determines  political  allegiance.  To 
understand  correctly  this  point — one  of  the  earliest,  strong- 
est and  most  persistently  used  of  all  the  arguments  urged 
for  the  establishment  and  maintenance  of  the  Potomac 
route,  first  for  river  navigation  and  later  as  a  canal — it  is 
necessary  to  recall  the  fact  that,  in  1784,  the  now  familiar 
method  of  creating  new  states  had  not  yet  been  discovered. 
How  to  deal  with  this  new  empire  so  rapidly  rising  in  the 
West  was,  therefore,  a  rather  puzzling  question.  The 
French  held  the  Mississippi,  and  it  was  reasonably  feared 
that  if  the  trade  of  the  country  west  of  the  Alleghanies 
should  be  allowed  to  float  down  the  Ohio  and  Mississippi  to 
the  French,  there  would  be  little  ground  for  expecting  the 
inhabitants  of  that  region  to  remain  politically  united  with 

1  House  Reports,  ipth  Congress,  1st  Session,  9. 


14  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal.  [438 

a  government  which  could  do  nothing  for  them  but  tax 
them.  Thus,  while  the  Potomac  Company  was  commercial 
only,  there  were  certainly  very  sound  and  strong  reasons 
politically  for  the  maintenance  of  such  a  corporation. 

In  order  to  secure  the  best  results  it  was  necessary  for  the 
states  of  Virginia  and  Maryland  to  arrive  at  some  definite 
understanding  about  the  division  of  privileges  and  respon- 
sibilities in  the  navigation  about  to  be  opened.  For  this 
purpose  a  meeting  of  the  most  influential  citizens  of  both 
states  assembled  at  Alexandria,  in  Virginia,  March  21, 
1785.  Later,  at  the  invitation  of  Washington  the  meeting 
adjourned  to  Mount  Vernon,  March  28,  1785. 1  The  min- 
utes of  this  meeting,  if  any  were  made,  do  not  appear  to  have 
survived.  If  it  could  be  known  more  definitely  what  hap- 
pened in  that  Mount  Vernon  retreat  around  the  hospitable 
board  of  Washington,  we  should  be  able  to  see  more  clearly 
how  the  history  of  the  Potomac  trade  route  stands  related 
to  the  origin  of  the  Federal  Constitution.2 

The  Potomac  Company,  which  had  received  a  charter 

1  Laws  of  Maryland,  1785,  chap.  I,  Preamble. 

2  Out  of  the  discussions  relative  to  opening  the  Potomac  River  to 
navigation  and  the  principles  which  should  govern  the  use  of  that 
navigation  by  Maryland  and  Virginia,  there  grew  a  wider  discussion 
of  the  condition  of  trade  in  the  colonies  generally.     In  the  absence 
of  anything  like  a  national  policy  in  regard  to  commerce  there  ex- 
isted such  obstacles  to  trade  between   the  colonies  themselves,   to 
say  nothing  of  foreign  trade,  that  Madison  left  the  Mount  Vernon 
Conference    determined   to    secure   a   more    representative   meeting. 
As  a  result  of  Madison's  earnest  representations  the  General  As- 
sembly of  Virginia,  at  its  next  session,  issued  an  invitation  to  the 
colonies  to  send  delegates  to  a  meeting  to  be  held  at  Annapolis, 
Maryland,  to  take  into  consideration  the  condition  of  trade  in  the 
colonies.     Thus  the  Annapolis  meeting  of  1786  sprang  directly  out 
of  the  Potomac  trade  route  agitation.     Out  of  the  Annapolis  meet- 
ing sprang  the  Convention  which  met  in  Philadelphia,  1787,  to  revise 
the  Articles   of   Confederation.     The   fact   that   this    Convention   is 
known  only  as  the  Constitutional  Convention  should  not  obscure  its 
origin  in  the  effort  of  Southern  statesmen  to  develop  the  Potomac 
trade  route. 


439]  Early  Development  of  Trade  Route.  15 

from  Virginia  in  October,  1784,*  confirmed  by  Maryland 
early  in  1785^  "for  opening  and  extending  the  navigation 
of  the  Potomac  River,"  did  not  prosper.  The  most  serious 
obstacles  to  the  passage  of  boats  down  the  river  were  the 
Little  Falls,  five  miles  above  Georgetown,  and  especially 
the  Great  Falls,  about  seven  miles  higher  up.  At  these 
points  the  water  is  so  rapid  and  the  rocks  in  the  channel 
so  formidable  that  the  only  means  of  passage  that  promised 
success  was  that  by  canal  and  locks.  But  besides  overcom- 
ing these  obstacles  of  a  really  serious  character,  the  Po- 
tomac Company  accomplished  more  than  has  generally  been 
supposed  towards  opening  a  passable  river  navigation. 

Descending  the  Potomac  the  first  obstacle  is  encoun- 
tered at  House's  Falls,  five  miles  above  Harper's  Ferry. 
Here  a  canal  was  made  fifty  yards  in  length  with  a  total 
fall  of  three  feet.  Around  Shenandoah  Falls,  immediately 
above  Harper's  Ferry,  a  canal  was  dug  on  the  left  bank  of 
the  river  one  mile  long  with  a  total  fall  of  fifteen  feet.  At 
Seneca  Falls  a  third  canal  was  constructed  three-quarters 
of  a  mile  in  length  with  a  total  fall  of  seventeen  feet.  To 
that  point  no  locks  had  been  found  necessary.  On  exam- 
ining the  Great  Falls  it  was  found  that  the  river  at  that 
point  makes  a  descent  of  seventy-six  feet  nine  inches  in  the 
short  space  of  twelve  hundred  yards.  Besides  the  difference 
in  elevation  the  shores  for  some  distance  below  the  falls  are 
perpendicular  cliffs  towering  thirty  feet  above  the  river,  mak- 
ing the  return  of  a  canal  to  the  channel  both  difficult  and 
expensive.  And  yet  by  a  triumph  of  engineering  remark- 
able for  that  age  the  passage  was  effected. 

The  canal,  on  the  Virginia  shore,  is  still  traceable 
throughout  its  entire  length  of  about  three-quarters  of  a 
mile.  The  locks,  though  constructed  more  than  a  hun- 
dred years  ago,  might  be  used  to-day  but  for  the  forest  trees 
which  have  sprung  up,  in  one  instance  at  least,  directly 

1  Henning's  "Statutes  of  Virginia." 

2  Maxey's  "Laws  of  Maryland,"  I,  488-500.     "Laws  of  Maryland," 
1784,  chap,  xxxiii. 


16  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal.  [440 

through  the  walls.  The  last  two  locks,  descending  through 
which  boats  were  passed  out  again  into  the  river,  are 
chambered  out  of  the  solid  rock  with  no  interval  but  the 
partition-gate  serving  both  locks.  Each  has  a  lift  of  over 
eighteen  feet,  nearly  three  times  the  average  lift  of  a  canal 
lock. 

The  fifth  and  last  canal,  passing  the  Little  Falls  on  the 
Maryland  shore,  is  something  over  two  miles  in  length. 
The  total  fall  is  over  thirty-seven  feet,  overcome  by  the  use 
of  four  locks.  Much  work  also  was  done  throughout  the 
river  channel,  deepening  it  and  removing  rocks.1 

Nevertheless,  the  Potomac  Company  was  only  moderately 
successful  under  the  immediate  presidency  of  Washington. 
With  his  death,  involving  the  loss  of  his  influence  and  wise 
counsels,  prosperity  may  be  said  to  have  departed.  In- 
deed, soon  after  organization  it  became  evident  that  the 
company  could  not  meet  the  requirements  of  the  charter 
as  to  the  time  within  which  the  river  was  to  be  opened  to 
navigation,  and  from  time  to  time  extensions  were  granted 
by  the  General  Assemblies  of  Maryland  and  Virginia.2  So 
things  went  on  till  1819.  The  terms  of  the  charter  had  not 
yet  been  complied  with,  and  the  company,  after  an  exist- 
ence of  thirty-five  years  and  the  expenditure  of  over  $700,- 
ooo,  including  stock,  debts  and  tolls,  with  the  exception  of 
one  small  dividend  of  $30,000  paid  in  1811,  applied  to  the 
Board  of  Public  Works  of  Virginia  for  relief.3 

Soon  after  the  creation  of  the  Board  of  Public  Works  by 
an  act  of  the  General  Assembly  of  Virginia,  in  1816,  the 
Board  suggested  in  a  report  to  the  legislature,  that  a  con- 
nection might  be  effected  between  the  waters  of  the  Po- 
tomac and  the  Ohio  by  navigable  canal.4  This  is  prob- 

1  See  for  detailed  minute  of  the  works  of  the  Potomac  Company. 
"Reports,"  etc.,   i7th  Congress,  ist  Session,  XI,   Report  No.  in. 
14-17. 

2  See  "Acts,  etc.,  Relating  to  the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal," 
Washington,  Gales  &  Seaton,  1828,  113-116,  139,  140. 

3  For  further  details    see  chap  iv.  of  this  monograph. 

4  House  Reports.  iQth  Congress,  2d  Session,  Report  No.  90,  2. 


441]  Early  Development  of  Trade  Route.  17 

ably  the  earliest  official  suggestion  of  a  continuous  canal 
from  tide-water  in  the  Potomac  to  the  head-waters  of  the 
Ohio.  But  the  proposal  was  allowed  to  fall  to  the  ground, 
and  when,  after  several  years,  the  subject  was  again  agi- 
tated, the  nationalizing  tendencies  in  the  Federal  Govern- 
ment had  proceeded  so  far  that  the  canal  project  was  soon 
drawn  away  from  private,  almost  from  state,  influence,  and 
developed  under  the  auspices  of  the  United  States. 

In  order  that  the  place  of  the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal 
project  in  the  "American  System"  may  be  understood,  it 
becomes  necessary  to  notice  in  the  next  chapter  the  attitude 
of  the  Federal  Government  towards  internal  improvement 
during  the  first  twenty  years  of  the  nineteenth  century. 


CHAPTER  II. 

GALLATIN'S  REPORT  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF 
INTERNAL  IMPROVEMENT. 

In  the  United  States  there  was  no  great  transportation 
line  until  the  Erie  Canal  was  opened  to  navigation  in  1825. 
For  this  there  were  two  main  reasons.  First,  private  capi- 
tal, and  even  state  resources,  had  proved  inadequate  to  the 
magnitude  of  such  works  as  the  widely  extended  territory 
of  the  country  demanded.  Second,  the  Federal  Govern- 
ment, though  possessing  the  means,  hesitated  between  con- 
stitutional interpretation  and  the  actual  necessities  of  com- 
merce, while  for  twenty  years  the  country  waited  most 
impatiently  for  the  decision  only  to  discover  at  last  that 
internal  improvement  in  the  United  States  must  be  initiated, 
at  least,  by  private  or  state  enterprise. 

To  provide  for  the  common  defence  and  to  regulate  com- 
merce are  duties  assigned  by  the  Constitution  to  Congress,1 
while  the  implied  powers  clause  gives  to  that  body  power 
to  make  all  laws  necessary  for  the  execution  of  these  duties. 
Such  were  the  arguments  of  those  who  favored  internal  im- 
provement by  the  Federal  Government.  On  the  other 
hand,  there  had  been  from  the  foundation  of  the  government 
a  strong  party  in  favor  of  limiting  the  powers  of  the  Federal 
Government  as  nearly  as  possible  to  the  letter  of  the  Con- 
stitution. In  1801  this  party,  with  Jefferson  at  its  head, 
came  into  power.  When  the  men  of  the  strict  construc- 
tion party  were  thus  brought  face  to  face  with  the  difficul- 
ties of  actual  government,  they  found  it  necessary  to  use 
power  enough  to  govern  efficiently  even  at  the  expense  of 
their  platform.  Expediency  conquered  theory,  though  an 
effort  was  made  to  cover  the  defeat  by  a  constitutional 

1  Article  I,  sec.  8.  19 


20  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal.  [444 

amendment  authorizing  what  had  already  been  done  under 
the  plain  requirements  of  the  situation.1  From  that  time 
forward  nationalizing  influences  were  kept  at  work  by  a 
succession  of  events  beyond  the  control,  perhaps,  of  any 
man,  or  even  of  any  party. 

Europe  was  distracted  by  a  devastating  war  and  as  early 
as  1803  signs  were  not  wanting  that  the  United  States  would 
be  drawn  into  the  conflict.2  Such  a  contingency  empha- 
sized the  importance  of  a  complete  system  of  internal  im- 
provement and  efforts  were  made  to  interest  the  Federal 
Government  in  that  direction.3  In  1807  it  was  said  that 
without  the  aid  of  England  a  war  with  any  principal  power 
of  Europe  would  suspend  if  not  destroy  our  external  navi- 
gation.4 The  lack  of  an  adequate  system  of  internal  im- 
provement was,  during  the  Revolutionary  War,  the  cause 
of  almost  every  difficulty  and  danger  which  the  colonies 
experienced.5 

The  subject  of  internal  improvement  was  brought  promi- 
nently before  Congress  for  the  first  time  in  1806.  In  that 
year  no  less  than  four  separate  enterprises  were  seeking 
financial  assistance  from  the  Federal  Government,  as  fol- 
lows: 

I.  On    the    fifth    of    December,  1805,  several  petitions 
which  had  been  presented  in  the  House  for  and  against  a 
bridge  across  the  Potomac,  at  the  city  of  Washington,  were 
referred  to  a  committee  for  report.6     In  due  time  the  com- 
mittee   reported    favorably    with  a  bill  which  was  passed 
March  21,  1806,  by  the  House,  but  failed  in  the  Senate.7 

II.  On  the  nineteenth  of  December  the  bill  for  the  Na- 
tional Road  was  introduced  in  the  Senate,8  and  became  law 
by  the  approval  of  the  President,  March  29,  i8o6.9 


Jefferson's  "Writings,"  Ford  (1897),  VIII,  262-3. 
a  President    Jefferson's     Third     Annual     Message.     Richardson's 
"Messages  and  Papers  of  the  Presidents,"  I,  361. 

3  "Annals  of  Congress,"  vol.  1806-7,  83,  84. 

4  Ibid.,  58.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  1805-6.  6  Ibid.,  263. 

T  Ibid.,  234.  8  Ibid.,  25.  n  Ibid.,   1238. 


445]        Gallatin's  Report  on  Internal  Improvement.  21 

III.  On  the  twenty-eighth  of  January,   1806,  the  me- 
morial of  the  Chesapeake  and  Delaware  Canal  was  presented 
in  the  Senate  and  referred  to  a  select  committee.1 

IV.  On  the  tenth  of  February,  1806,  a  memorial  from 
the  General  Assembly  of  Kentucky,  in  behalf  of  the  Ohio 
Canal  Company,  was  presented  in  the  House  and  referred.2 
In  due  time  the  memorial  was  reported  unfavorably,  and 
the  House  resolved  that  it  was  inexpedient  to  grant  the  aid 
solicited  by  the  legislature  of  Kentucky,  in  opening  a  canal 
to  avoid  the  rapids  of  the  Ohio.3 

Of  the  four  efforts  to  obtain  federal  aid  only  one,  the  Na- 
tional, or  Cumberland  Road  succeeded.  But  that  was  by  no 
means  regarded  as  the  beginning  of  a  system  of  internal 
improvement  by  the  Federal  Government.  On  the  other 
hand,  aid  was  granted  under  what  seemed  the  necessity  of 
opening  communication  with  the  Western  country.  The 
Cumberland  Road  Bill  was,  moreover,  based  on  an  earlier 
arrangement  by  which  the  Federal  Government  waived  a 
very  small  percentage  of  the  income  from  the  sale  of  public 
lands  in  Ohio  for  the  purpose  of  making  roads  in  or  to  that 
state.*  The  bill  as  passed  in  1806  appropriated  thirty  thou- 
sand dollars  to  make  a  road  from  Cumberland,  Maryland, 
to  the  Ohio  River.  The  entire  amount,  however,  was 
chargeable  to  the  above-mentioned  public  lands  fund  which 
had  been  provided  for  in  i8o2.5 

The  Cumberland  Road  Bill  was,  therefore,  scarcely  more 
than  a  fulfilment  by  the  Federal  Government  of  a  promise 
made  to  the  people  of  the  Northwest  Territory  in  the  bill  of 
1802,  which  provided  for  the  admission  of  Ohio  into  the 
Union  as  a  state.6  Nevertheless,  the  Cumberland  Road  soon 
furnished  the  friends  of  internal  improvement  with  a  con- 
crete example,  to  which  they  never  failed  to  point  whenever 
the  constitutionality  of  their  program  was  called  in  question. 

1  "Annals  of  Congress,"  vol.  1805-6,  74;  see  also  infra,  16-19. 

2  Ibid.,  448.  3  Ibid.,  828.  *  Ibid.,  21-25. 
5  Ibid.,  vol.                                          *  Ibid.,  vol.  1801-2,  1349-51. 


22  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal.  [446 

The  case  of  the  Chesapeake  and  Delaware  Canal  was 
different.  An  appeal  was  made  directly  to  the  Federal 
Government  for  aid  in  the  prosecution  of  a  work  of  internal 
improvement.  The  memorial,  after  reciting  the  military 
and  commercial  advantages  which  the  canal  was  expected 
to  furnish,  gives  in  outline  a  review  of  that  system  of  internal 
improvement  along  the  Atlantic  Coast,  which  was  a  little 
later  recommended  in  the  special  report  of  the  Secretary  of 
War  on  the  subject  of  roads  and  canals.1  There  is  the  same 
propriety,  it  was  argued,  in  federal  assistance  for  works  of 
general  importance  to  the  Union  as  there  is  in  state  aid  for 
local  works  such  as  the  opening  of  rivers  and  the  making 
of  roads.2  Great  as  were  the  advantages  which  the  adjacent 
states  were  expected  to  derive  from  the  canal,  those  to  be 
gained  by  the  Federal  Government  would  be  far  greater, 
especially  in  the  event  of  a  foreign  war.  The  committee 
to  whom  the  memorial  was  referred  brought  in  a  favorable 
report,  declaring  that  it  is  among  the  first  duties  of  a  gov- 
ernment to  promote  public  works  of  a  general  nature,  and 
no  work  deserves  the  character  of  public  improvements 
more  than  canals.3  But  the  real  importance  of  the  proposed 
canal  could  only  be  justly  appreciated  when  considered  as 
"the  basis  of  a  vast  scheme  of  interior  navigation,  connect- 
ing the  waters  of  the  Lakes  with  those  of  the  most  southern 
states."  In  the  House,  however,  the  memorial  received  an 
unfavorable  report4  and  the  matter  was  postponed  to  the 
next  session. 

In  his  message  of  December  2,  1806,  President  Jefferson, 
having  reviewed  the  financial  situation  which  promised  in 
the  near  future  a  large  surplus,  recommends  the  mainte- 
nance of  the  import  duties  at  a  reasonable  figure  and  the 
application  of  the  resulting  surplus  to  purposes  of  educa- 
tion and  internal  improvement.  But  "because  the  objects 

1  See  Memorial  of  the  Chesapeake  and  Delaware  Canal  Company 
in  "Annals  of  Congress,"  vol.  1805-6,  194-197. 

2  Ibid.,  195.  *Ibid.,  193.  4  Ibid.,  537- 


447]        Gallatin's  Report  on  Internal  Improvement.  23 

now  recommended  are  not  among  those  enumerated  in  the 
Constitution,"  an  amendment  conferring  the  necessary 
authority  was  suggested.1  Again,  however,  no  amendment 
was  proposed,  since  there  was  a  strong  party  in  favor  of  an 
aggressive  internal  improvement  policy  on  the  part  of  the 
government  under  cover  of  the  implied  powers  of  Con- 
stitution. On  the  contrary,  an  amendment  intended  to  pre- 
vent the  adoption  of  any  such  policy  by  the  government  was 
proposed  in  the  House  on  the  eleventh  of  December.2 
Here  the  amendment  question  rested  for  the  time. 

Again,  in  January,  1807,  the  Chesapeake  and  Delaware 
Canal  question  came  up  and  was  again  favorably  reported 
in  the  Senate.8  With  a  full  treasury,  a  small  national  debt, 
for  the  most  part  irredeemable  for  a  term  of  years,  and  a 
committee  appointed  in  the  House  to  devise  means  of  dis- 
posing of  the  surplus,  no  more  propitious  moment  could 
be  selected  for  the  inauguration  of  the  work.  The  sym- 
pathy of  the  executive  was  assured,  and  as  to  the  question 
of  the  constitutionality  of  federal  aid  for  internal  improve- 
ments, it  was  argued  that  the  cutting  of  a  canal  was  a  meas- 
ure unquestionably  proper  with  a  view  either  to  the  safety 
of  commerce  or  the  defence  of  the  nation,  both  of  which 
functions  belonged  to  the  Federal  Government.  But  even 
if  that  were  not  so,  why  should  not  Congress  aid  the  canal 
in  the  same  manner  in  which  aid  had  just  been  given  to  the 
Cumberland  Road?  Why  not  make  the  company  a  grant 
of  land  to  be  paid  for  in  capital  stock?  As  soon  as  the  canal 
should  be  completed  the  stock  would  become  convertible, 
so  that  the  government  would  merely  be  serving  its  own 
interests  in  effecting  a  quicker  sale .  of  the  public  lands, 
while  the  aid  afforded  the  canal  company  would  result  in 
great  and  permanent  advantages  to  the  Union.  But  even 
beyond  this  there  was  good  reason  to  believe  that  the  stock 


1  "Sixth  Annual  Message,"  Richardson,  I,  409,  410. 

2  "Annals  of  Congress,"  vol.  1806-7,  148. 
8  Ibid.,  31- 


24  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal.  [448 

of  the  canal  would  become  a  valuable  source  of  income.  It 
was  cited  that  English  canals  had  already  become  very 
profitable.1  In  accordance  with  these  arguments,  a  bill 
making  a  grant  of  land  to  the  company  was  introduced  and 
read  a  second  time,  when  the  whole  matter  was  postponed 
till  the  next  session.2 

In  1809  a  bill  was  passed  by  the  Senate  making  a  grant 
of  land  to  the  Chesapeake  and  Delaware  Canal  Company, 
but  the  measure  was  lost  in  the  House.3  The  House  held 
that  the  bill  not  only  involved  a  great  grant  of  public  prop- 
erty, but  also  a  constitutional  question  too  important  to  be 
taken  up  near  the  end  of  a  session.  Still,  the  party  in  favor 
of  the  bill  argued  that  no  new  principle  was  involved,  and 
that  the  constitutional  question  had  been  decided  long  ago, 
when  the  Congress  had  taken  stock  in  the  Bank  of  the 
United  States.  Besides,  the  Cumberland  Road  had  re- 
ceived grants  in  that  very  session,  and  also  the  Canal  of 
Carondelet.4  Nevertheless,  the  measure  was  postponed,5 
this  time  indefinitely,  and  though  persistently  brought  for- 
ward at  each  session  of  Congress  till  1819,  no  aid  was 
granted  till  1824,  after  the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal  Con- 
vention had  led  to  a  change  in  the  policy  of  the  Federal 
Government  toward  internal  improvement. 

Meanwhile  the  subject  of  a  system  of  internal  improve- 
ment, under  the  auspices  of  the  Federal  Government,  had 
developed  independently  of  the  Chesapeake  and  Delaware 
Canal  Company's  importunities.  When  it  was  discovered 
by  the  internal  improvement  party  that  Congress  probably 
could  not  be  committed  to  a  system  of  internal  improvement 
by  urging  the  advantages  to  be  expected  from  any  particular 
work,  the  Senate  immediately  adopted  other  tactics  look- 
ing to  the  inauguration  of  such  a  system  in  any  form  that 
might  prove  acceptable  to  the  whole  country.  On  the 


1  "Annals  of  Congress,"  vol.  1806-7,  59.  2  Ibid.,  87. 

3  Ibid.,  vol.  1808-9,  34i-  *  Ibid.,  1558-59. 

6  Ibid.,  1559. 


449]        Gallatin's  Report  on  Internal  Improvement.  25 

twenty-third  of  February,  1807,  a  resolution  was  introduced 
directing  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  collect  and  re- 
port to  the  Senate,  at  its  next  session,  the  best  information 
obtainable  concerning  the  usefulness,  practicability  and 
probable  expense  of  the  Chesapeake  and  Delaware  Canal, 
together  with  plans  by  which  the  government  might  aid 
in  the  work.  On  the  twenty-eighth  this  resolution  was 
withdrawn  and  another  substituted,  asking  for  information 
and  plans  with  a  view  to  a  comprehensive  system  of  internal 
improvement.1 

Following  the  directions  of  this  resolution,  Mr.  Gallatin, 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  instituted  an  extensive  inquiry 
on  the  subject  of  internal  improvement  in  the  United  States. 
Two  circulars  were  prepared,  one  containing  fourteen  ques- 
tions about  canals,  the  other  nine  questions  about  overland 
roads.  By  means  of  these  circulars  sent  to  those  known  to 
be  in  a  position  to  furnish  facts,  a  great  mass  of  material 
was  collected.  The  information  gathered  was  embodied 
in  a  report  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  on  the  subject 
of  roads  and  canals.  This  report,  dated  April  4,  i8o8,2  fur- 
nished the  internal  improvement  party  with  another  maga- 
zine of  arguments  and  soon  became  a  landmark  in  the 
struggle  scarcely  less  important  than  the  Cumberland  Road. 

The  strong  recommendations  of  the  report  occasioned  no 
surprise,  however,  because  it  was  well  known  that  Mr.  Gal- 
latin was  in  favor  of  a  central  government  that  could  do  the 
things  recommended  by  the  report.3  The  extent  of  terri- 
tory in  the  United  States  rendered  facilities  for  transporta- 
tion necessary  and  at  the  same  time  too  expensive  to  be 
provided  by  private  capital.  But  even  if  an  individual  work 
could  be  operated  here  and  there,  the  whole  country  would 
not  be  benefited,  as  it  would  be  by  a  general  system  of 
works  advantageously  distributed  under  the  direction  of  the 

1  "Annals  of  Congress,"  vol.  1806-7,  97- 

2  I7th  Congress,  ist  Session,  "Reports,"  etc.,  X,  Document  No. 
8,  7-86,  passim. 

3  "Annals  of  Congress,"  vol.  1806-7,  86. 


26  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal.  [450 

Federal  Government,  and  the  Federal  Government  alone 
could  overcome  the  difficulties  of  such  a  system.  Again, 
the  early  and  efficient  aid  of  the  Federal  Government  was 
recommended  because  good  roads  and  canals  would  tend, 
through  commercial  and  social  intercourse,  to  bind  in  closer 
union  the  remotest  corners  of  the  United  States.1  Gallatin, 
therefore,  thought  that  the  United  States  should  begin  at 
once  a  complete  system  of  internal  improvement  to  be 
steadily  prosecuted  through  a  period  of  ten  years.  The 
entire  plan  comprehended  four  fairly  distinct  parts,  corres- 
ponding in  general  with  the  physical  features  of  what  was 
then  the  United  States. 

I.  The  Atlantic  Coast  system,  extending  from  Maine  to 
Georgia. 

II.  The  Atlantic  and  Western  waters  system,  embracing 
the  region  south  of  New  York  and  east  of  the  Mississippi. 

III.  The  Atlantic  and  Great  Lakes-St.  Lawrence  sys- 
tem, chiefly  in  New  York. 

IV.  Interior  canals  or  local  works  throughout  the  coun- 
try. 

The  report  is  somewhat  confused,  however,  by  an  attempt 
to  classify  the  proposed  works  according  to  their  character 
as  canals  or  roads  rather  than  upon  the  single  basis  of  routes, 
since  several  of  the  routes  involve  both  canals  and  roads. 
The  main  features  of  the  document  may  be  briefly  presented 
by  routes,  as  follows:2 

I.     Atlantic  Coast  system. 


1  "Report    Secretary    of    the    Treasury    on    Public    Roads    and 
Canals,"  1808,  2,  3. 

2  It  would  be  difficult  to  overestimate  the  importance  of  the  report 
which  is  summarized  in  the  following  text.     It  has  been  generally 
overlooked  that  the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal  as  actually  com- 
menced  under   the   patronage    of   the   Federal    Government   twenty 
years  later,  was  an  attempt  to  realize  the  ideals  of  this  report,  some- 
what modified  by  the  changes  of  those  twenty  years. 


451]        Gallatin's  Report  on  Internal  Improvement. 
i.     Canals. 


27 


Name. 

Connecting. 

From  to 

Qg 

o^ 

Estimated 
cost. 

Massachusetts 

(  Barnstable  Bay 
I  Buzzard's  Bay 

Weymouth 
Taunton 

26 

26O 

$1,200,000 

New  Jersey 

/  The  Raritan 
\  Delaware  Bay 

Brunswick 
Trenton 

28 

IOO 

800,000 

Delaware  and 
Chesapeake 

/  Ches.  Bay 
\  Delaware  Bay 

Christiana 
Elk 

22 

148 

75O,OOO 

Chesapeake  and 
Albemarle 

f  Ches.  Bay 
\  Albemarle  Sd. 

Elizabeth  riv 
Pasquotank 

22 

40 

250,OOO 

Totals, 

98 

548 

$3,000,000 

2.     Roads. 

A  great  turnpike  road  from  Maine  to 
Georgia,  along  the  whole  extent  of  the 
Atlantic  Coast,  to  cost 


4,800,000 


Total $7,800,000 

II.     The  Atlantic  and  Western  waters  sys- 
tem. 

1.  The  improvement  of  the  four  At- 
lantic    rivers — Susquehanna,     Potomac, 
James,  and  Santee  to  the  highest  practi- 
cable point,  principally  by  canals,  with 
locks  where  necessary,  around  the  falls, 
to  cost,  in  addition  to  what  had  already 

been  expended  by  private  companies  . . .       $1,500,000 

2.  A  canal  at  the  falls  of  the  Ohio, 
estimated  at 300,000 

3.  Four  artificial  roads  from  the  head 
of  navigation  on  the  four  Atlantic  rivers 
to  the  nearest  corresponding  Western  riv- 
ers, namely,  from  the  Susquehanna  to  the 
Alleghany,  the  Potomac  to  the  Mononga- 
hela,  the  James  to  the  Kanawha,  and  the 
Santee  to  the  Tennessee,  a  total  of  four 
hundred    miles,    at   an    average    cost    of 

$7000  a  mile 2,800,000 


28  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal.  [452 

4.     Improvement  of  roads  to  Detroit, 
St.  Louis  and  New  Orleans 200,000 


$4,800,000 

III.     The    Atlantic   and    Great    Lakes-St. 
Lawrence  system. 

1.  The   Hudson   and    Champlain,    or 
Northern  navigation,  extending  from  the 
confluence  of  the  Hudson  and  the  Mo- 
hawk to  Lake  Champlain   $800,000 

2.  The  Mohawk  and  Ontario,  or  West- 
ern navigation,  extending  from  the  Hud- 
son by  way  of  the  Mohawk  River,  Oneida 
Lake    and    the    Onondaga  and  Oswego 

Rivers  with  Lake  Ontario 2,200,000 

3.  Canal  around  Niagara  Falls 1,000,000 


Total     $4,000,000 

IV.     Interior,  or  local,  canals. 

This  system  was  apparently  devised  to 
meet  the  charge  of  favoritism  which,  it 
was  thought,  might  be  urged  in  some  sec- 
tions which  could  not  be  directly  bene- 
fited by  any  of  the  great  routes  proposed. 
The  location  of  such  works  was  left  to 
time  and  circumstance,  while  "without 
pretending  to  suggest  what  would  be  the 
additional  sum  necessary  for  that  object, 
it  will,  for  the  sake  of  round  numbers,  be 
estimated  at $3,400,000 

RECAPITULATION. 

I.     Atlantic  Coast  system $7,800,000 

II.     Atlantic  and  Western  waters  system.         4,800,000 

III.  Atlantic  and   Great  Lakes-St.   Law- 

rence system  4,000,000 

IV.  Interior  canals,  estimated  roughly  at         3,400,000 


Grand  total  $20,000,000 


453]        Gallatiris  Report  on  Internal  Improvement.  29 

The  report  suggested  three  ways  in  which  the  govern- 
ment might  prosecute  the  actual  construction  of  the  works. 
These  were: 

First,  purchase  of  stock  in  private  companies. 

Second,  loans  to  private  companies. 

Third,  direct  prosecution  of  the  works  by  contract  under 
supervision  of  the  government  engineers. 

Of  the  three  the  first  two  were  considered  better  than  the 
last  because  private  companies,  it  was  expected,  would  be 
more  diligent  and  less  wasteful.  Gallatin  preferred  the  first 
method.  He  thought  the  government  should  purchase 
stock  in  private  companies  organized  for  the  immediate 
construction  of  the  several  works. 

Arguments  supporting  a  national  internal  improvement 
policy  which  looked  to  the  ultimate  expenditure  of  twenty 
million  dollars  of  the  public  money  were  found  in  the  follow- 
ing facts  :  An  annual  appropriation  of  two  millions  of  dollars 
would  bring  the  entire  system  to  completion  in  ten  years. 
That  sum  could  in  time  of  peace  be  furnished  without  in- 
convenience from  existing  resources  of  the  treasury.  The 
annual  appropriation  on  account  of  the  public  debt  alone 
for  the  preceding  six  years  had  been  eight  millions  of  dol- 
lars. After  1809,  on  account  of  the  irredeemable  character 
of  the  debt,  scarcely  more  than  four  and  a  half  millions 
annually  could  be  used  in  that  service.  This  one  item 
would  produce  a  surplus  of  over  three  and  a  half  millions 
a  year. 

Viewed  in  another  way,  it  appeared  that  the  United 
States  from  1801  to  1809  had  discharged,  or  provided  for, 
twenty-three  millions  of  the  principal  of  the  old  debt,  to 
say  nothing  of  the  payment  of  a  large  portion  of  the  Loui- 
siana purchase  in  the  meantime  .  Increasing  revenues  from 
a  growing  commerce  rendered  it  probable  that  the  country 
could  more  easily  furnish  twenty  millions  during  the  next 
ten  years  for  internal  improvements. 

Again,  the  permanent  annual  revenue  of  the  United 
States  had,  on  a  most  moderate  estimate,  on  a  peace  basis, 


30  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal.  [454 

been  placed  at  fourteen  millions.  The  annual  expenses  of 
the  government,  including  the  debt  service  for  the  corres- 
ponding period,  would  not  exceed  eight  and  a  half  mil- 
lions. If  the  government  should  apply  three  and  a  half 
millions  annually  to  the  defence  and  protection  of  the 
country,  a  most  improbable  amount  if  peace  should  con- 
tinue, there  would  still  remain  two  millions  annually  for 
internal  improvement. 

Finally,  the  Federal  Government  held,  north  of  the  Ohio 
River  about  one  hundred  million  acres  of  land  fit  for  culti- 
vation, and  about  fifty  million  acres  south  of  the  Tennessee. 
Mo  source  of  revenue  could  be  more  appropriately  devoted 
to  internal  improvement.  The  proposed  annual  appropri- 
ation from  the  Treasury  would  cease  in  the  event  of  a  war, 
but  the  appropriation  of  the  income  from  public  lands  till 
a  certain  sum  should  be  reached,  would  constitute  a  prac- 
tically permanent  fund.  "If  the  proceeds  of  the  first  ten 
millions  of  acres  which  may  be  sold,  were  applied  to  such 
improvements,  the  United  States  would  be  amply  repaid  in 
the  sale  of  the  other  ninety  millions."  x 

Such  in  outline  is  the  system  of  internal  improvement 
which  for  about  a  quarter  of  a  century  the  Federal  Govern- 
ment was  more  or  less  persistently  urged  to  undertake. 
With  what  success  it  is  the  purpose  of  the  following  pages 
to  show. 

1  Report  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  on  Public  Roads  and 
Canals,  1808,  42. 


CHAPTER  III. 

EFFORTS  TO  INDUCE  THE  FEDERAL  GOVERN- 
MENT TO  UNDERTAKE  A  SYSTEM  OF 
INTERNAL  IMPROVEMENT. 

Mr.  Gallatin  urged  that  the  government  at  once  under- 
take his  system  as  above  outlined,  by  purchasing  stock  in 
the  Chesapeake  and  Delaware  Canal,  the  Dismal  Swamp 
Canal,  the  Ohio  Canal  and  the  Pittsburg  Road.  Appro- 
priations to  the  Cumberland  Road,  the  only  work  yet 
undertaken  directly  by  the  government,  might  be  made  as 
occasion  should  demand.1  As  an  important  preliminary 
also,  surveys  and  levels  of  the  various  routes  might  be 
obtained  by  the  government  at  small  expense.  Until  the 
expected  amendment  to  the  Constitution  should  be  ob- 
tained, however,  the  government  ought  to  be  guided  in  the 
application  of  its  means  largely  by  circumstances.2 

But  before  these  recommendations  reached  Congress 
that  body,  as  well  as  the  whole  country,  had  become  ab- 
sorbed in  foreign  affairs.  Nevertheless,  in  1810,  the  per- 
sistence of  the  Chesapeake  and  Delaware  Canal  Company, 
and  the  great  need  of  a  line  of  transportation  to  the  Ohio 
country  combined  to  direct  attention  once  more  to  the 
subject  of  internal  improvement.  In  January,  1810,  a  bill 
embodying  the  principal  features  of  Mr.  Gallatin's  system 
was  introduced  in  the  Senate.  A  similar  bill  was  about  the 
same  time  introduced  in  the  House,  but  both  came  to  grief.3 

The  increasing  troubles  which  were  soon  to  issue  in  the 
War  of  1812  only  temporarily  drowned  the  clamor  for 

1  "Report  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,"   1808,  44. 

2  Ibid.,  43. 

8  "Annals  of  Congress,"  nth  Congress,  vol.  1809-10,  613,  1443. 

31 


32  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal.  [456 

internal  improvements.  The  subject  continued  to  come  up 
in  every  session  of  Congress,  and  with  the  return  of  peace 
internal  improvement  began  once  more  to  absorb  the  atten- 
tion of  the  people  at  large,  and  to  find  even  stronger  advo- 
cacy in  the  national  legislature. 

In  his  annual  message  of  December  5,  1815,  President 
Madison  declared  that  the  attention  of  Congress  should 
now  be  recalled  to  the  importance  of  establishing  through- 
out the  country  the  roads  and  canals  which  could  be  best 
executed  under  national  authority.  Such  works,  he  con- 
tinues, are  not  only  the  most  profitable  investments  known, 
but  also  they  "do  the  most  honor  to  the  governments  whose 
wise  and  enlarged  patriotism  duly  appreciates  them."  The 
fact  that  individual  states  were  doing  much  was  only 
stronger  reason,  said  Madison,  why  the  Federal  Govern- 
ment should  undertake  those  works  which  by  their  nature 
required  a  "national  jurisdiction  and  national  means."  A 
constitutional  amendment  was  again  suggested  to  remove 
any  doubt  as  to  the  power  of  the  government  to  proceed 
with  such  works.1 

The  Senate  Committee  to  which  was  referred  that  part  of 
the  President's  message  relating  to  roads  and  canals, 
brought  in  a  bill,  in  February,  1816.  The  four  principal 
provisions  were  as  follows : 

First,  the  appropriation  of  a  certain  annual  sum  which 
should  constitute  a  fund  for  making  roads  and  opening 
canals. 

Second,  payment  for  any  shares  of  stock  for  which  Con- 
gress might  subscribe  in  any  private  company  was  to  be 
made  out  of  the  fund  so  created. 

Third,  all  dividends  and  profits  which  should  accrue  from 
the  shares  of  stock  held  by  the  United  States  were  to  be 
credited  to  the  fund. 

Fourth,  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  was  required  to 

1  Richardson :  "Messages  and  Papers  of  the  Presidents,"  I,  567-8. 


457]  The  Federal  Government  and  Internal  Improvement.      38 

report  the  condition  of  the  fund  at  each  session  of  Con- 
gress.1 

The  bill  reached  and  passed  a  third  reading,  but  was  then 
indefinitely  postponed  by  a  vote  of  eighteen  to  nine.2 
President  Madison  was  by  this  time,  however,  so  warmly 
attached  to  the  idea  of  a  system  of  internal  improvement 
by  the  Federal  Government  that  he  could  not  permit  such 
a  disposition  of  the  subject.  In  his  eighth  and  last  annual 
message  Madison  says :  "I  particularly  invite  again  the 
attention  of  Congress  to  the  expediency  of  exercising  their 
existing  powers,  and,  where  necessary,  of  resorting  to  the 
prescribed  mode  of  enlarging  them,  in  order  to  effectuate 
a  comprehensive  system  of  roads  and  canals."  3  The  friends 
of  internal  improvement  thought  no  such  amendment  neces- 
sary and  none  was  proposed.  But  in  1817  both  Houses 
of  the  national  legislature  were  able  to  agree  upon  a  meas- 
ure for  the  inauguration  of  a  system  of  internal  improvement 
by  the  Federal  Government  without  an  amendment  to  the 
Constitution.*  This  bill  set  apart  the  bonus  paid  for  the 
charter  of  the  second  Bank  of  the  United  States,  together 
with  the  share  of  the  United  States  in  the  dividends  of  the 
bank,  so  as  to  create  a  permanent  fund  for  the  construction 
of  roads  and  canals.5  The  money  was  to  be  applied  in  the 
same  manner  as  that  prescribed  in  the  Senate  Bill  of  i8i6.6 
The  national  policy  of  internal  improvement  which  had 
been  favored  by  every  executive  since  the  foundation  of  the 
government,7  for  which  a  constitutional  amendment  had 
been  first  suggested  in  i8o6,8  which  had  been  first  clearly 
outlined  in  Gallatin's  report  in  i8o8,9  and  which  had  been 

^'Annals  of  Congress,"  vol.  1815-16,  HI.  2  Ibid.,  300. 

3  Richardson,  I,  576. 

*  "Annals  of  Congress,"  vol.  1816-17,  191,  934. 

5  Ibid.,  361.  6  See  supra. 

7  "Annals  of  Congress,"  vol.  1816-17,  925- 

8  Richardson,  I,  410. 

9  "Report  of  the  Secretary  of    the  Treasury  on  the   Subject  of 
Roads  and  Canals."     Washington,  1808. 

3 


34  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal.  [453 

urged  in  some  form  in  every  session  of  Congress  for  almost 
ten  years,  seemed  at  last  about  to  be  inaugurated.  Im- 
agine, then,  the  disappointment  of  the  friends  of  the  system 
when  President  Madison,  on  the  last  day  of  his  presidency, 
vetoed  the  bill  on  the  ground  that  the  Federal  Government 
had  not  the  power  under  the  Constitution  to  engage  in 
such  works.  The  bill  had  passed  the  House  originally  by 
only  a  narrow  majority  and  of  course  could  not  be  passed 
over  the  veto.  To  the  friends  of  the  system  it  appeared  as 
if  the  patient,  persistent  work  of  a  decade  had  been  de- 
stroyed by  the  stroke  of  a  pen. 

By  this  time  the  states  had  begun  to  despair  of  national 
assistance  in  works  of  internal  improvement  and  were  turn- 
ing more  seriously  to  their  own  resources.  New  York 
was  just  beginning  the  Erie  Canal,  which  was  soon  to  make 
New  York  City  the  metropolis  of  America.1  The  General 
Assembly  of  Virginia,  in  1816,  created  a  Board  of  Public 
Works,2  while  Maryland  soon  after  took  action  to  hasten 
the  opening  of  the  Potomac  navigation.3 

In  Congress  the  friends  of  internal  improvement  soon 
rallied  again,  and  President  Monroe,  in  his  first  annual  mes- 
sage, once  more  urged  upon  Congress  the  opportunity 
amounting  almost  to  a  necessity  in  view  of  the  great  extent 
of  the  United  States,  of  a  national  policy  of  internal  im- 
provement.4 At  the  same  time  the  President  expressed 
the  opinion  that  Congress  did  not  have  the  power  to  prose- 
cute such  works,  and  strongly  recommended  an  amendment 
to  remedy  the  defect.5  The  Senate  was  first  to  act,  and  on 
the  ninth  of  December,  1817,  the  following  amendment  to 
the  Constitution  was  proposed : 

"Congress  shall  have  power  to  pass  laws  appropriating 
money  for  constructing  roads  and  canals,  and  improving  the 

1  "The  Erie  Canal  and  its  Relations  to  the  City  of  New  York," 
Scribner's  Magazine,  vol.  1877-78,  118,  119. 

2  "Laws  of  Virginia,"  1816,  ch. 

3  "Acts,  etc.,  Relating  to  the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal,"  142. 

4  Richardson,  I,  584-5.  5  Ibid.,  II,  17,  18. 


459]  The  Federal  Government  and  Internal  Improvement.      35 

navigation  of  water-courses.  Provided,  however,  That  no 
road  or  canal,  shall  be  conducted  in  any  state,  nor  the  navi- 
gation of  its  waters  improved,  without  the  consent  of  such 
state.  And  provided  also,  That  whenever  Congress  shall 
appropriate  money  to  these  objects,  the  amount  thereof 
shall  be  distributed  among  the  several  states,  in  the  ratio 
of  representation  which  each  state  shall  have  in  the  most 
numerous  branch  of  the  national  legislature.  But  the  por- 
tion of  any  state,  with  its  own  consent,  may  be  applied  to 
the  purpose  aforesaid,  in  any  other  state."  * 

The  amendment  passed  to  a  second  reading,  but  on  the 
twenty-sixth  of  March,  1818,  the  matter  was  indefinitely 
postponed  by  a  vote  of  twenty-two  to  nine.2 

The  above  vote,  however,  must  not  be  regarded  as  in 
any  way  significant.  On  the  other  hand,  the  "American 
System"  was  just  beginning  to  take  strong  hold  of  the  coun- 
try, and  every  influence  was  beginning  to  strengthen  the 
hands  of  the  Federal  Government.  The  President  was 
strongly  in  favor  of  a  system  of  internal  improvement.  He 
was  most  ably  seconded  in  the  Cabinet,  not  by  the  Secre- 
tary of  the  Treasury,  as  the  President  in  1808  had  been,  but 
by  the  Secretary  of  War,  that  doughty  champion  of  ener- 
getic measures  in  anything  in  which  he  might  be  engaged, 
John  C.  Calhoun.  Recognizing  in  Calhoun  the  champion 
which  had  been  found  in  Gallatin  in  1808,  the  House  passed 
a  resolution  in  April,  1818,  directing  the  Secretary  of  War 
to  collect  and  report  at  the  next  session  such  information 
as  he  might  be  able  to  obtain  on  the  subject  of  roads  and 
canals,  together  with  plans  for  the  application  of  such  means 
as  Congress  possessed  to  internal  improvement.3  Mr.  Cal- 
houn at  that  time  was  known  to  favor  large  national  powers. 
He  had  no  constitutional  scruples,  and  his  report  in  re- 
sponse to  the  resolution  of  the  House  went  even  further 


1  "Annals  of  Congress,"  1817-18,  I,  22. 

2  Ibid.,  292. 

3  Ibid.,  II,  1678. 


36  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal.  [460 

than  that  of  Gallatin  had  gone  in  recommending  an  aggres- 
sive policy  in  regard  to  internal  improvement.1  For  such  a 
policy  Calhoun  believed  that  the  government  had  ample 
powers  under  the  Constitution. 

He  therefore  recommended  that  the  Federal  Government 
engage  directly  in  the  work  of  construction.  This  might 
be  done  at  once  by  employing  the  engineer  corps  in  mak- 
ing the  necessary  surveys  and  plans.  Then  the  work  might 
be  let  out  to  contractors  under  the  supervision  of  the  gov- 
ernment. It  was  even  recommended  that  the  soldiers  be 
employed  on  works  of  internal  improvement  at  a  compen- 
sation a  little  below  the  average  wages  paid  for  such  work, 
in  addition  to  their  regular  pay,  which  was  scarcely  more 
than  nominal.  The  proposition  will  not  seem  so  startling 
when  it  is  recalled  -that  this  very  method  had  been  adopted 
by  the  Secretary  of  War  in  the  construction  of  military 
roads,  and  with  highly  satisfactory  results.  On  several  roads 
work  was,  at  that  time,  being  performed  by  the  soldiers, 
who  received  a  wage  of  fifteen  cents  a  day,  "with  an  extra 
allowance  of  a  gill  of  whiskey."  2 

With  this  report  of  the  Secretary  of  War  the  second  cycle 
of  internal  improvement  agitation  may  be  said  to  culmi- 
nate. The  "American  System"  had  been  practically,  if  not 
theoretically,  accepted,  the  era  of  good  feeling  had  been 
ushered  in,  the  effects  of  the  War  of  1812  were  no  longer 
felt,  save  in  the  prosperity  shared  by  all  branches  of  indus- 
try, and  population  and  wealth  were  rapidly  increasing, 
while  there  was  yet  no  adequate  means  of  communication 
between  the  Atlantic  seaboard  and  the  interior.  Such  a 
communication,  always  greatly  to  be  desired,  had,  with  the 
increasing  importance  of  the  Western  country,  become 
almost  indispensable.  Still  the  Federal  Government  hesi- 
tated. 


1  See  "Report  of  the   Secretary  of  War    Relative  to  Roads  and 
Canals.'  '     Washington,  1819. 
1  Ibid. 


461]  The  Federal  Government  and  Internal  Improvement.      37 

Meanwhile  there  were  other  influences  at  work  develop- 
ing, half  unconsciously  and  under  other  auspices,  one  of  the 
greatest  enterprises  which  the  modern  world  has  seen  in 
the  way  of  internal  improvement.  Public  works  by  the 
Federal  Government,  as  an  abstract  principle,  seemed  out  of 
the  question,  but  might  not  the  Federal  Government  be 
induced  to  undertake  the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal  pro- 
ject? 


CHAPTER  IV. 
INDEPENDENT  MOVEMENT  FOR  A  CANAL. 

It  would  be  difficult  to  say  precisely  where  or  when  the 
Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal  project  had  its  origin.  The 
Board  of  Public  Works  of  Virginia,  soon  after  its  creation 
by  Act  of  Assembly  in  1816,  had  suggested  that  a  connection 
might  be  effected  between  the  waters  of  the  Potomac  and 
those  of  the  Ohio  "by  a  navigable  canal."  *  There  was  no 
response  to  this  suggestion,  but  in  1819  the  board  received 
an  application  from  the  Potomac  Company  for  an  exami- 
nation with  a  view  to  decide  upon  the  best  policy  to  be 
adopted  for  the  future  in  order  to  give  full  effect  to  the 
purposes  of  that  company's  charter.2  As  a  result  of  this 
appeal,  the  General  Assembly  of  Virginia  passed  a  reso^ 
lution,  January  8,  1820,  requesting  the  Board  of  Public 
Works  to  inquire  into  the  expediency  of  directing  the  prin- 
cipal engineer  to  examine  the  waters  of  the  Potomac,  above 
the  upper  line  of  the  District  of  Columbia,  with  a  view  to 
ascertain  and  report  upon  the  most  efficient  means  of  im- 

1  House  Report  No.  90,  iQth  Congress,  2d  Session,  2. 

2  The  Potomac  Company  was  chartered  by  Virginia  in  1784 ;  the 
charter  was  confirmed  by  Maryland  in  1785,  and  in  the  same  year 
George  Washington  was  chosen  president.     The  company  at  once 
engaged  in  a  determined  and  persistent  effort  to  render  navigable 
the  channel  of  the  Potomac  River.     The  effort  was  only  partially  suc- 
cessful.    Only  one  dividend  was  ever  paid  ($3000,  in  1811),  and  by 
1819  the  company  had  expended  every  dollar  of  its  stock,  its  entire 
income  for  thirty-five   years,  besides  creating   a   debt  of  $100,000, 
while  the  condition  of  the  River  channel  was  still  so  obstructed  that 
the  income  from  tolls  was  not  sufficient  to  meet  operating  expenses. 
It  was  under  these  circumstances  that  the  appeal  was  made  to  the 
Board  of  Public  Works  of  Virginia. 

39 


40  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal.  [464 

proving  the  navigation  of  the  same,  "and  to  explore  the 
country  between  the  Potomac  and  the  Ohio  on  one  side, 
and  the  Potomac  and  the  Rappahannock  on  the  other,  with 
a  view  to  ascertain  and  report  upon  the  practicability  of 
effecting  a  communication  by  canals  between  the  three 
rivers."  x  Accordingly,  Mr.  Thomas  Moore,  chief  engineer 
of  the  board,  was  detailed  for  the  work,  which  was  begun 
June  30,  i82O.2 

Though  the  Potomac  Company  had  failed  to  accomplish 
the  purposes  set  forth  in  the  charter,  yet  the  amount  of 
traffic  which  passed  through  the  company's  works,  while  so 
very  imperfect,  seemed  to  show  conclusively  a  strong  de- 
sire on  the  part  of  the  public  to  transport  goods  by  way  of 
the  Potomac.  What  could  explain  this  desire  if  not  the 
shortness  and  cheapness  of  the  route?  Mr.  Moore  was, 
therefore,  directed  to  survey  the  river  with  a  view  to  the 
location  of  a  canal  in  that  valley.  The  results  of  that  survey 
led  to  the  conclusion  that  a  canal  from  Georgetown  to  the 
Coal  Banks  above  Cumberland  was  entirely  practicable, 
while  the  probable  cost  was  put  down  at  only  $i,ii4,3OO.3 

This  was  the  earliest  survey  to  determine  the  practica- 
bility of  a  continuous  canal  throughout  the  valley  of  the 
Potomac,4  and  the  accompanying  estimate  of  the  cost  of 
such  a  canal  became  the  basis  of  the  agitation  which  from 
that  time  forward  ceaselessly  occupied  the  friends  of  the 
enterprise.  Mr.  Moore's  report,  dated  December  27,  1820, 
was  transmitted  to  the  Governor  of  Virginia  and  by  him  to 
the  General  Assembly.  Upon  the  basis  of  the  representa- 
tions made  in  this  report  a  resolution  5  was  adopted  author- 
izing the  governor  to  appoint  a  committee  to  co-operate 

1  "Laws  of  Virginia  Relating,"  etc.,  December  Session,  1819,  Reso- 
lutions. 

2  House  Report  No.  90,  igth  Congress,  2d  Session,  33. 

3  "Mr.   Andrew   Stewart's   Report   on   the   Chesapeake   and   Ohio 
Canal,"  14. 

*  Ibid.,  14. 

5  "Acts,  etc.,  Relating  to  the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal,"   116. 


465]  Independent  Movement  for  a  Canal.  41 

with  a  similar  committee  to  be  appointed  by  the  governor 
of  Maryland.  This  committee  was  to  be  empowered  to 
make  an  examination  of  the  affairs  of  the  Potomac  Com- 
pany and  report  to  the  states  immediately  concerned. 

Accordingly,  as  soon  as  the  resolution  had  been  passed, 
January  29,  1821,  by  the  General  Assembly  of  Virginia,  a 
copy  was  laid  before  the  legislature  of  Maryland.  A  similar 
resolution  was  promptly  adopted  by  that  body,1  and  the 
joint  committee  thus  authorized  was  immediately  after 
appointed. 

The  object  for  which  the  committee  had  been  appointed 
was  to  examine  the  Potomac  and  its  branches  in  order  to 
show  whether  the  Potomac  Company  had  fulfilled  the  con- 
ditions of  its  charter.  If  it  should  appear  that  the  terms 
of  the  charter  had  not  been  complied  with,  and  that  the 
resources  of  the  company  afforded  no  prospect  of  effecting 
at  an  early  date  the  objects  of  the  incorporation,  one  of  two 
possible  courses  would  have  to  be  adopted : 

I.  The  states  interested  might  furnish  money  to  the  Po- 
tomac Company. 

II.  An    action    might  be  brought  for  "annulling    and 
vacating  the  charter," z  which  had  continued  in   force  to 
that  time  only  through  the  indulgence  accorded  the  com- 
pany on  account  of  the  urgent  need  of  better  transportation 
facilities  through  the  valley  of  the  Potomac.     Nor  were 
these  diplomatic  formalities  intended  for  one  moment  to 
conceal  the  facts  in  the  case.     It  had  become  painfully  evi- 
dent, even  to  the  members  of  the  company,  that  the  Po- 
tomac Company  had  outlived  its  day.     Yet  the  negotia- 
tions which  were  considered  necessary  for  the  accomplish- 
ment, without  opposition,  of  so  plain  a  requirement  had 
dragged  along  through  almost  two  years.     At  last,  however, 
under  the  pressure  of  new  commercial  conditions,  and  the 


1  "Acts,  etc.,  Relating  to  the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal,"  142. 

2  See  "Laws  of  Virginia,"  December  Session,  1820. 


42  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal.  [466 

rapid  growth  of  all  kinds  of  business  after  the  peace  of  1815, 
a  new  order  of  things  was  tardily  inaugurated. 

The  members  of  the  joint  committee  were  Athanasius 
Fenwick,  William  Naylor  and  Moses  T.  Hunter *  on  the 
part  of  Maryland ;  William  T.  T.  Mason  and  Elie  Williams 
on  the  part  of  Virginia.  Slow  communication  and  the  dis- 
tance which  separated  the  members  of  the  commission 
caused  some  delay;  then  the  sickness  of  Mr.  Moore,  who 
had  made  the  previous  survey,  and  had  therefore  been 
appointed  by  the  commissioners  to  undertake,  with  Mr. 
Isaac  Briggs,  of  Maryland,  the  present  examination,  caused 
still  further  postponement.  It  was  not  till  July  2,  1821, 
that  the  commissioners  were  able  to  meet  at  Georgetown, 
D.  C.,  and  begin  the  responsible  work  imposed  upon  them. 
An  examination  of  the  books  of  the  Potomac  Company 
revealed  a  condition  of  hopeless  bankruptcy,  with  no  rea- 
sonable prospect  of  obtaining  in  the  near  future  a  sum  of 
money  sufficient  to  meet  the  requirements  of  the  charter.2 

Having  satisfied  themselves  that  the  purpose  for  which 
the  Potomac  Company  had  been  created,  namely,  the  open- 

1  "Report  of  the  Commissioners  to  Survey  the  Potomac,"  90. 

2  The  questions  put  by  the  Commissioners  to  the  treasurer  of  the 
Potomac  Company  brought  out  the  following  facts : 

Amount  actually  received  on  stock $336,551.10 

Total  amount  on  tolls  from  August  i,  1799,  to  August  I, 

1822      225,817.67 


Total      $562,368.77 

Deduct  the  only  dividend  ever  paid 3,890.00 


Total  resources $558,478.77 

Total  amount  expended  by  the  company  from  its  origin 

till  August  i,  1822 729,387.29 

Leaving  net  indebtedness,  August  i,  1822 171,909.52 

The  interest  alone  on  this  debt  amounted  to  near  $10,000  a  year, 
while  the  average  annual  tolls  for  the  preceding  ten  years  had  not 
been  over  $10,300,  leaving  practically  nothing  for  operating  expenses 
or  repairs. 


467]  Independent  Movement  for  a  Canal.  4S 

ing  of  the  channel  of  the  Potomac  River  to  navigation, 
could  not  be  accomplished  with  the  means  in  sight,  the 
commissioners  determined  to  recommend  that  the  charter 
be  annulled.  They  believed  that  the  time  had  come  for 
abandoning  the  river  channel  in  favor  of  a  continuous  canal 
extending  at  least  from  tide-water  to  Cumberland.  Accord- 
ingly, the  commissioners  proceeded  to  Cumberland  on  the 
fifteenth  of  July,  and  spent  the  rest  of  that  month  in  an 
inspection  of  the  Potomac  from  that  point  westward  as  far 
as  the  mouth  of  Savage  River.  An  attempt  was  also  made 
to  discover  a  possible  line  of  communication  between  the 
head-waters  of  the  Potomac  and  those  of  the  Ohio  at  the 
junction  of  the  Monongahela  and  the  Alleghany. 

On  the  thirty-first  of  July,  having  completed  these  pre- 
liminary surveys  under  the  guidance  of  Mr.  Moore's  sur- 
vey of  1820,  the  commissioners  began  the  location  of  a  canal 
which  they  had  reason  to  believe  would  be  at  once  under- 
taken jointly  by  Maryland  and  Virginia.  But  in  the  work  of 
location  many  difficulties  were  encountered,  among  which 
sickness  was  by  no  means  the  least.  Members  of  the  engi- 
neer corps  would  fall  sick,  leave  the  work  and  perhaps  sev- 
eral days  would  elapse  before  a  competent  substitute  could 
be  found  to  fill  the  vacant  place.1  Finally,  on  the  eighteenth 
of  September,  when  the  work  of  location  had  proceeded  to 
a  point  one  hundred  and  fifty-seven  miles  eastward  from  the 
beginning,  Chief  Engineer  Moore  fell  sick  and  the  work  had 
to  be  abandoned.  The  death  of  Mr.  Moore,  which  followed 
within  a  week  or  ten  days  after  his  retirement,  undoubtedly 
marks  a  turning  point  in  the  history  of  the  Chesapeake  and 
Ohio  Canal  project.  Had  this  able  and  efficient  officer,  already 
an  authority  on  the  topography  of  the  Potomac  region,  lived 
to  give  practical  and  immediate  direction  to  the  eager  yet 
half-jealous  interest  of  the  states  concerned,  there  is  every 
reason  to  believe  that  the  canal  would  have  been  in  operation 
between  Georgetown  and  Cumberland  before  1826,  when 

1  "Report  of  the  Commissioners  to  Survey  the  Potomac,"  70,  71. 


44  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal.  [468 

the  United  States  Government  completed  its  first  survey 
and  estimate.  As  it  was,  the  survey  could  not  be  resumed 
till  the  first  of  December.  Mr.  Isaac  Briggs,  who  had  been 
appointed  by  Maryland  to  assist  Moore,  of  Virginia,  suc- 
ceeded to  Moore's  place  as  chief  engineer  to  the  Board  of 
Public  Works  of  Virginia,  and  now  took  up  the  work  where 
it  had  been  dropped. 

Notwithstanding  the  lateness  of  the  season,  Briggs  pushed 
the  work  of  location  rapidly  to  completion.  The  commis- 
sioners then  addressed  themselves  to  the  task  of  accumu- 
lating data  for  an  estimate  of  the  cost  of  the  proposed  canal. 
But  pioneer  work  in  this  field  was  found  to  be  both  tedious 
and  difficult.  It  is  true  that  by  1822  canals  were  no  longer 
new  or  strange,  but  in  the  United  States  canals  were  looked 
upon  as  having  just  entered  the  experimental  stage,  and 
the  vast  sums  of  money  necessary  for  such  undertakings 
were  not  forthcoming.  The  Erie  Canal  in  New  York  had 
been  commenced  about  1817  with  money  furnished  by  the 
state  treasury,  after  a  vain  effort  had  been  made  to  induce 
the  United  States  Government  to  undertake  the  work,  and 
by  1822  this  great  enterprise  was  nearing  completion.  It 
would  seem,  therefore,  that  the  Erie  Canal  should  have  fur- 
nished all  necessary  data  ready  to  hand,  and,  in  fact,  such 
was  the  case;  but  the  Chesapeake  project  involved  two 
peculiar  difficulties  which  were  never  sufficiently  taken  into 
account : 

I.  The  canal  as   located   by  the  joint   commission   of 
Maryland  and  Virginia  would  lie  throughout  in  the  valley  of 
the  Potomac,  a  valley  everywhere  narrow,  while  in  many 
places  mountain  cliffs  confine  the  river  to  a  narrow  gorge. 

II.  On  account  of  these  cliffs  the  canal  would  have  to 
lie  for  miles  on  the  very  margin  of  the  river — sometimes 
partly  in  the  channel — thus  exposing  the  works  to  the  full 
force  of  the  frequent  and  violent  freshets  in  the  Potomac 
Valley. 

These  conditions  appear  to  have  been  overlooked  in  every 
one  of  the  numerous  estimates  of  the  cost  of  the  Chesa- 
peake and  Ohio  Canal. 


469]  -Independent  Movement  for  a  Canal.  45 

i 

Neglecting  the  enormous  expense  required  to  give  per- 
manence to  a  work  exposed  to  such  dangers,  the  commis- 
sioners were  able  to  reach  quite  satisfactory  conclusions  as 
to  the  probable  cost  of  the  work.  How  little  value  attached 
to  such  an  estimate  becomes  very  clear  in  the  light  of  sub- 
sequent events. 

As  the  basis  of  their  estimate  the  commissioners  adopted 
a  canal  thirty  feet  wide  at  the  surface,  twenty  feet  wide  at 
the  bottom,  and  deep  enough  for  three  feet  of  water.  Such 
a  canal,  it  was  thought,  might  be  constructed  along  the 
Maryland  shore  of  the  Potomac  from  Georgetown  to  Cum- 
berland for  $1,574,954,  an  increase  over  Moore's  estimate 
of  nearly  half  a  million  dollars.1  As  finally  constructed, 
the  canal  cost  the  state  of  Maryland  alone  over  eleven  mil- 
lions of  dollars,  while  the  subscriptions  of  the  United  States 
Government,  the  District  cities,  Virginia  and  others  in  the 
early  days  of  the  enterprise,  swelled  the  .total  to  almost 
fifteen  millions  of  dollars,2  or  nearly  ten  times  as  much  as 
the  work  was  expected  to  cost  if  it  had  been  pushed  rapidly 
to  completion  at  the  time  when  public  interest  was  first 
generally  attracted  to  the  canal  enterprise.  It  is  not  strange, 
therefore,  that  the  report  of  the  commissioners,  transmitted 
under  date  of  December  19,  1822,  to  the  governors  of  Vir- 
ginia and  Maryland,  and  by  them  to  the  General  Assemblies 
of  their  respective  states,  should  have  aroused  considerable 
enthusiasm  in  the  enterprise.  The  first  cost  was  to  be  in- 
deed large  for  those  days,  but  trifling  after  all  in  comparison 
with  the  profits  which  English  experience  had  taught  to 
expect  from  a  canal.  Some  English  canals  were  at  that 
time  paying  an  annual  dividend  of  thirty  per  centum  on 
their  stock,  to  say  nothing  of  the  reduction  of  the  cost  of 
transportation  to  the  general  public.  The  proposed  canal 
from  Georgetown  to  Cumberland  was  expected  to  reduce 

1  "Report  of  the  Commissioners  to  Survey  the  Potomac,"  83. 

2  "Report  to  the  Stockholders  on   Completion  of  the   Canal  to 
Cumberland,"  154. 


46  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal.  [470 

the  cost  of  transportation  to  one-tenth  of  the  cost  by  team 
over  the  roads.1 

Maryland  and  Virginia  had  long  been  accustomed  to  act 
together  in  regard  to  the  Potomac,  and  it  was  confidently 
expected  that  they  would  now  quickly  agree  upon  the  legis- 
lation necessary  for  a  canal.  Yet  a  bill  for  the  incorporation 
of  the  "Potomac  Canal  Company"  failed  to  pass  the  General 
Assembly  of  Maryland.  Why?  Did  the  business  instinct 
of  Maryland's  legislators  scent  danger  in  the  quiet  and 
apparently  innocent  thread  of  water  which  it  had  been  pro- 
posed to  prepare  to  lead  small,  harmless  craft  to  George- 
town instead  of  Baltimore  ?  We  are  not  told — unless  in  the 
logic  of  the  events  which  followed. 

In  the  General  Assembly  of  Virginia,  a  bill  for  the  incor- 
poration of  the  "Potomac  Canal  Company"  passed  on  the 
twenty-second  of  February  1823 ;  but  of  course  the  enter- 
prise could  not  proceed  without  the  consent  of  Maryland. 
If  that  refusal  to  charter  the  "Potomac  Canal  Company" 
had  killed  the  enterprise  outright,  Maryland  would  have 
been  spared  a  humiliating  and  very  costly  series  of  blunders 
extending  through  a  period  of  three-quarters  of  a  century. 
Maryland's  refusal,  however,  so  far  from  killing  the  enter- 
prise, only  served  to  arouse  its  friends.  Maryland  may, 
therefore,  on  account  of  that  hesitation,  be  said  to  have  pre- 
vented the  speedy  and  economical  construction  of  a  small 
canal  which  would  have  conferred  inestimable  benefits  upon 
the  adjacent  country,  might  have  paid  a  good  annual  divi- 
dend, and  still  left  Baltimore  entirely  free  to  adopt  any  mode 
of  communication  with  the  West  that  might  seem  to  offer 
the  best  results.  If  the  prevention  of  these  things  had  been 
the  end  of  the  matter,  the  responsibility  might  be  com- 
placently, even  cheerfully,  accepted.  But  there  was  more. 
When  the  first  practical  and  needful  measures  were  aban- 
doned there  was  substituted  for  them  a  chimerical  project 


1  "Report  to  the  Stockholders   on   Completion  of  the  Canal  to 
Cumberland,"  32. 


471]  Independent  Movement  for  a  Canal.  47 

which  was  by  courtesy  called  the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio 
Canal.  Is  it  possible  that  a  canal  connecting  Georgetown 
instead  of  Baltimore  with  the  West  could  have  interfered 
with  Baltimore's  prosperity  more  than  did  that  chimera  of  a 
canal  ?  That  question  also  may  be  best  answered  in  the  lan- 
guage of  events. 

It  was  in  the  early  twenties  that  the  rising  tide  of  public 
opinion  in  favor  of  internal  improvements  by  the  Federal 
Government  began  to  sweep  away  all  obstructions.  Al- 
ready there  were  unmistakable  signs  that  the  policy  which 
the  Federal  Government  had  adhered  to  more  or  less  con- 
sistently for  thirty-five  years  was  about  to  be  abandoned. 
If  at  last  a  great  system  of  internal  improvement  was  to  be 
inaugurated  by  the  Federal  Government,  what  more  appro- 
priate than  that  a  beginning  be  made  with  a  liberal  subsidy 
to  the  "Potomac  Canal?"  Accordingly,  at  the  call  of 
friends  of  the  enterprise  popular  meetings  were  held  in  Vir- 
ginia, Maryland  and  Pennsylvania  during  the  spring  and 
early  summer  of  1823.  Public  sentiment  was  found  to  run 
so  strongly  in  favor  of  the  enterprise  that  it  was  determined 
to  hold  a  convention  in  Washington  some  time  in  the  fall 
for  the  purpose  of  uniting  counsels,  proposing  such  legis- 
lation as  would  harmonize  all  the  interests  to  be  advanced 
by  the  canal,  and  of  enlisting  the  hearty  co-operation  of  the 
three  sister  states  of  Maryland,  Pennsylvania  and  Virginia 
with  the  United  States  in  an  enterprise  that  would  surpass 
in  importance  any  like  undertaking  in  the  world.  So  invit- 
ing did  the  project  appear  to  its  friends  that  few  if  any  real- 
ized how  many  obstacles  blocked  the  way  to  success.  The 
advantages  of  the  proposed  work  to  private  and  public  wel- 
fare, to  civil  and  military  interests  were  so  apparent  and  so 
real  to  the  promoters  of  the  enterprise  that  local  jealousies 
and  political  intrigues  were  expected  to  vanish  in  the  ardent 
desire  of  all  to  see  the  canal  speedily  completed. 

Meanwhile  events  were  rapidly  enlarging  the  project  and 
raising  questions  which  for  number  and  difficulty  must  have 
baffled  the  wisdom  and  magnanimity  of  the  world.  It 


48  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal.  [472 

appears  that  the  first  public  meeting  in  the  interest  of  the 
canal  enterprise  was  held  at  the  courthouse  in  Leesburg, 
Virginia,  August  25,  1823. *  Mr.  John  Rose,  Esq.,  was 
chosen  president  and  Mr  Robert  Braden  appointed  secre- 
tary. Many  similar  meetings  were  held,  but  the  preamble 
to  the  resolutions  adopted  at  Leesburg  will  serve  to  show 
the  purpose  and  spirit  of  all : 

"WHEREAS,  The  improvement  of  the  navigation  of  the 
River  Potomac  by  a  canal  from  the  seat  of  government  to 
the  Great  Cumberland  Road,  to  be  thence  extended,  as  soon 
as  practicable,  so  as  to  meet  a  similar  canal  from  the  head 
of  the  steamboat  navigation  of  the  nearest  western  water, 
is  an  object  of  inestimable  importance,  not  only  to  the  sev- 
eral states  through  whose  territory  the  contemplated  canal 
may  pass,  but  to  the  commercial  and  political  prosperity  of 
the  United  States  in  general :  Be  it  therefore  recommended 
to  the  citizens  of  the  several  counties  and  corporations  dis- 
posed to  co-operate  in  the  promotion  of  the  above  object,  in 
order  to  devise  some  practical  scheme  for  its  certain  and 
speedy  accomplishment;  to  elect,  respectively,  two  or  more 
delegates  to  represent  them  in  a  general  meeting  to  be  held 
in  the  city  of  Washington,  on  Thursday,  the  sixth  of  No- 
vember next." 

The  invitation  was  generally  accepted.  The  delegates 
chosen  met  in  the  Capitol  at  Washington,  Thursday,  Friday 
and  Saturday,  November  6,  7  and  8,  i823.2  The  personnel 
of  this  convention  is  not  without  a  certain  significance. 
Glancing  over  the  roll,  it  appears  that  there  were  thirty-eight 
representatives  from  Virginia,  thirty-one  from  Maryland, 
twenty-four  from  the  District  of  Columbia,  one  only  from 
Pennsylvania  and  none  from  Ohio. 

When  it  is  remembered  that  Virginia  had  ever  been  most 
active  in  regard  to  the  Potomac  route,  had  originated  the 

1  "Washingtonian,"  No.  910. 

2  "Proceedings  of  the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal  Convention." 
Washington,    1823. 


473]  Independent  Movement  for  a  Canal.  49 

Potomac  Company  and  given  her  most  illustrious  son  to 
preside  over  that  ill-starred  corporation,  had  received  the 
Potomac  Company's  appeal,  acted  upon  it  and  procured  an 
examination,  had  chartered  the  Potomac  Canal  Company, 
and  when  Maryland  refused  to  aid  in  the  prosecution  of  that 
modest  work,  had  first  given  active  support  to  that  larger 
design  born  of  an  expanding  commerce  and  a  vigorous 
young  republic  just  becoming  conscious  of  its  unparalleled 
powers  and  possibilities,  it  will  not  seem  strange  that  Vir- 
ginia's delegation  of  her  most  public-spirited  and  influ- 
ential citizens  should  have  composed  three-fifths  of  the 
whole  convention.  This  also  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  three 
other  states  and  the  District  of  Columbia  each  had  a  ma- 
terial interest  about  as  important  as  that  of  Virginia. 

Maryland's  interest  in  the  Potomac  trade  route  had  always 
been  lively,  and  though  hesitating  in  the  matter  of  a  canal, 
she  sent  a  good  delegation  to  the  Washington  convention. 
The  District  of  Columbia  delegation  was  naturally  the 
largest  in  proportion  to  area  represented.  Two  or  three 
citizens  of  Ohio  found  their  way  across  the  Alleghanies 
and  sat  in  the  convention  as  honorary  members,  notwith- 
standing the  fact  that  the  new  state  would  presumably  have 
to  wait  a  long  time  for  the  canal  to  reach  her  borders,  while 
the  Erie  Canal  was  almost  ready  to  offer  the  West  easy, 
rapid  and  cheap  transportation  to  the  seaboard  at  New 
York.  Pennsylvania,  absorbed  in  the  construction  of  trans- 
portation lines  intended  to  draw  the  products  of  the  West 
to  Philadelphia,  sent  only  one  delegate  to  the  Washington 
convention,  and  Mr.  Shriver  attended,  no  doubt,  more  out 
of  the  personal  interest  which  he  felt  in  such  works  than  as 
a  representative  of  the  public  sentiment  of  Pennsylvania. 

It  is  worth  while  to  take  this  glance  at  the  convention  in 
which  the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal  project  took  shape, 
and  to  mark  where  the  centre  of  gravity,  so  to  say,  lies, 
because  that  centre  was  to  shift  twice  within  the  next  ten 
years,  the  second  time  not  without  its  interest  for  Maryland. 
A  further  fact  to  be  noted  in  behalf  of  Maryland  is  that 
4 


50  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal.  [474 

although  Virginia  had  apparently  been  more  active  in  the 
matter  of  legislation  favoring  the  Potomac,  Maryland  had 
subscribed  for  more  shares  of  stock.1  Finally,  and  most 
significant  of  all,  it  is  to  be  noted  that  while  the  state  of 
Maryland  sent  one-third  of  the  delegates  who  attended  the 
Washington  Convention  Baltimore  sent  not  a  single  dele- 
gate. The  proceedings  show  that  on  the  first  day  of  the 
Convention,  on  motion  of  Gen.  Mason,  Dr.  Wm.  Howard, 
of  Baltimore,  was  admitted  to  a  seat  in  the  Convention  as 
an  honorary  member.  Dr.  Howard  was  always  a  warm 
friend  of  the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal  project,  believing 
that  by  connecting  Baltimore  with  the  canal  Maryland's 
metropolis  would  secure  the  earliest  and  best  communica- 
tion with  the  West  then  possible. 

After  the  roll-call  on  Friday,  November  7,  1823,  on 
motion  of  Mr.  Mercer,  of  Virginia,  Dr.  Joseph  Kent,  of 
Prince  George's  County,  Maryland,  was  unanimously 
chosen  President  of  the  Convention.  The  preamble  to  the 
resolutions  then  introduced  by  Mr.  Mercer  is  as  follows : 

"WHEREAS,  A  connection  of  the  Atlantic  and  Western 
waters  by  a  canal,  leading  from  the  seat  of  the  National 
Government  to  the  river  Ohio,  regarded  as  a  local  object,  is 
one  of  the  highest  importance  to  the  states  immediately 
interested  therein,  and  considered  in  a  national  view,  is  of 
inestimable  consequence  to  the  future  union,  security  and 
happiness  of  the  United  States, 

"Resolved,  That  it  is  expedient  to  substitute  for  the  present 
defective  navigation  of  the  Potomac  River,  above  tide-water, 
a  navigable  canal  from  Cumberland  to  the  Coal  Banks  at  the 
eastern  base  of  the  Alleghany,  and  to  extend  such  canal  as 
soon  thereafter  as  practicable  to  the  highest  constant  steam- 
boat navigation  of  the  Monongahela  or  Ohio  River."  2 

1  Amount  subscribed  by  Virginia,  120  shares,  $53,333-33^;  by 
Maryland,  220  shares,  $97,777-77%;  "Report  Maryland  and  Virginia 
Commissioners,"  Exhibit  A. 

*  "  Proceedings,"  4. 


475]  Independent  Movement  for  a  Canal.  51 

It  was  further  brought  out  that  the  canal  was  to  extend 
ultimately  to  Lake  Erie,  thus  connecting  the  seat  of  Gov- 
ernment and  the  Great  Lakes.  If  this  idea  was  not  new  it 
was  the  earliest  complete  statement  of  the  Chesapeake  and 
Ohio  Canal  project. 

The  construction  of  the  canal  from  Georgetown  to  the 
Coal  Banks  was  to  be  commenced  at  once.  The  estimate 
of  the  Virginia  and  Maryland  Commissioners  was  adopted 
as  a  basis,  and,  making  liberal  allowance  for  the  extension 
above  Cumberland,  and  an  enlargement  of  the  canal  to  forty 
feet  at  the  surface,  Mr.  Mercer  considered  the  sum  of 
$2,750,000  as  ample  for  the  completion  of  the  work.1  In 
justice  to  Mr.  Mercer  and  the  members  of  the  Washington 
Convention,  it  ought  to  be  said  in  the  light  of  experience 
that  if  the  work  could  have  been  put  at  once  into  the  hands 
of  a  strictly  business  corporation  operating  on  purely  econ- 
omic principles,  there  are  many  reasons  to  believe  that  the 
canal  would  have  been  actually  completed  within  two  or 
three  years  at  a  cost  of  no  more  than  $2,750,000  if  not  less. 
But  the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal  project  was  born  in 
politics  and  in  politics  it  was  to  die. 

Ninety-six  miles  of  the  Erie  Canal  had  been  completed, 
at  an  average  cost  of  only  $11,792  a  mile,  while  the  com- 
pleted section  of  the  Champlain  Canal  had  fallen  28  per  cent, 
below  the  estimated  cost  of  $10,000  a  mile.  Canals  had 
been  constructed  in  both  Virginia  and  Pennsylvania  at  a 
cost  even  lower  than  this.2  The  estimate  proposed  for  the 
Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal,  212  miles  to  the  Coal  Banks, 
gives  an  average  of  nearly  $13,000  per  mile.  Gen.  Lacock, 
late  of  the  United  States  Senate,  aided  by  Mr.  David  Shriver, 
who  had  an  intimate  general  and  local  knowledge  of  the 
subject,  had  formed  an  independent  estimate,  and,  in  con- 
junction with  other  responsible  men,  had  offered  to  con- 
struct the  proposed  canal  for  $2,500,000,  being  a  little  over 

1  Speech  of  C.  F.  Mercer,  Convention  of  1823,  23. 

2  Ibid.,  22. 


52  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal.  [476 

$11,000  a  mile.  Upon  those  who'  are  skeptical  on  this  point 
must  rest  the  burden  of  showing  how  practical  business  men, 
accustomed  to  large  financial  responsibility,  could  have 
exposed  themselves  to  such  ruin  as  that  which  ultimately 
overtook  the  canal  had  that  ruin  been  inherent  in  the  nature 
of  the  enterprise. 

Just  at  this  time  the  results  of  Clay's  "American  System" 
were  just  beginning  to  appear  and  some  popular  object  had 
to  be  found  upon  which  to  expend  the  surplus  revenue 
brought  into  the  Treasury  by  the  protective  tariff  of  1820. 
In  that  situation  Mr.  Mercer  and  other  members  of  Con- 
gress, as  well  as  the  local  politicians,  saw  what  they  mistook 
to  be  their  opportunity.  General  Lacock's  offer  was  not 
considered,  and  the  Convention  under  the  direction  of  Mr. 
Mercer  proceeded  to  the  adoption  of  the  following  plan : 

The  entire  sum  of  $2,750,000  was  to  be  furnished  by  the 
governments  interested :  The  United  States  four-elevenths, 
or  $1,000,000;  Virginia,  three-elevenths,  or  $750,000;  the 
District  cities,  two-elevenths,  or  $500,000;  and  Maryland 
two-elevenths,  or  $500,000.  The  Federal  Government 
would  thus,  aside  from  great  moral  weight,  be  by  far  the 
largest  stockholder,  and  might,  for  that  reason  alone,  be 
expected  to  exert  a  controlling  influence  in  the  work.  In- 
deed, the  proposed  division  of  stock  was  entirely  arbitrary, 
and  was  adopted  for  the  double  purpose  of  committing  the 
Federal  Government  irrevocably  to  the  enterprise,  and  of 
retaining  the  management  of  the  canal  in  the  hands  of  fed- 
eral officials.  In  order  to  make  certain  of  these  points  the 
plan  went  further,  and  proposed  that  the  United  States 
should  become  directly  responsible  to  the  company  for  the 
entire  amount  of  the  stock,  which  was  to  be  paid  over  in 
four  annual  instalments,  the  first  payment  to  be  made  on 
the  first  of  March,  1825,  the  last  on  the  first  of  March,  1829. 
Here  at  last  was  a  great  work  of  internal  improvement  for 
the  execution  of  which  the  Federal  Government  was  ex- 


477]  Independent  Movement  for  a  Canal.  58 

pected  to  become  responsible.  The  whole  project  was  ex- 
pressly stated  to  be  otherwise  impracticable.1 

The  Joint  Commission  to  Survey  the  Potomac  had  reck- 
oned upon  an  equal  division  of  the  financial  responsibility 
between  the  interested  states.  The  existence  of  industries 
which  paid  large  profits  on  all  available  private  capital, 
leaving  none  for  transportation  companies,  made  the  neces- 
sity for  those  facilities  all  the  more  pressing.  But  indepen- 
dent of  this  fact  it  was  widely  believed  that  canals  offered  a 
good  investment  for  the  state's  money  on  purely  economic 
grounds.  The  first  cost  might  be  met  by  a  loan.  After  the 
completion  of  the  canal,  the  dividend  on  the  stock  would  be 
sufficient  not  only  to  pay  the  interest  on  the  loan,  but  in 
time  to  extinguish  the  principal.  Was  not  New  York  about 
completing  such  a  work  at  a  very  reasonable  cost,  and  with 
every  prospect  of  a  liberal  income?  The  Washington  Con- 
vention simply  proposed  to  apply  the  same  reasoning  to  the 
Federal  Government.  That,  of  course,  involved  the  old  con- 
stitutional question  which  had  steadily  confronted  the  coun- 
try since  the  Declaration  of  Independence.  That  question 
had  defeated  two  propositions  for  an  extended  system  of  in- 
ternal improvement  by  the  Federal  Government,  but  at  last 
the  success  of  the  so-called  "American  System"  had  brought 
to*  Congress  a  solid  majority  in  favor  of  a  strong  national 
policy.  Whether  prosperity  came  because  of  the  tariff  duties, 
or  not,  it  certainly  came  after  them,  and  the  theories  which 
had  stood  the  test  of  oratory  and  logic  for  more  than  a 
quarter  of  a  century  were  powerless  against  the  logic  of 
commercial  prosperity. 

Once  more  expediency  was  to  triumph  over  theory. 
President  Monroe  believed,  like  his  predecessor,  that  Con- 
gress did  not  have  power,  under  the  Constitution,  to  under- 
take works  of  internal  improvement.  Yet  Monroe  was  not 
the  one  to  stand  in  the  way  of  a  popular  movement,  and 

1  "Proceedings  of  the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal  Convention  in 
1823  and  1826,"  56. 


54  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal.  [478 

there  were  already  signs  that  he  would  conquer  his  convic- 
tions in  regard  to  internal  improvements.  Such  were  the 
conditions  under  which  the  Convention  of  1823  assembled. 
It  is  not  strange,  therefore,  that  the  Convention  assumed  not 
only  the  sympathy  and  interest,  but  also  the  financial  sup- 
port of  the  Federal  Government  in  a  work  which  was  to  a 
certain  extent,  in  its  very  nature,  national. 

The  financial  plan  thus  conveniently  disposed  of,  the  Con- 
vention was  at  liberty  to  address  itself  to  more  serious  diffi- 
culties. Judging  from  the  number  and  enthusiasm  of  the 
delegates  the  Convention  expected  that  the  charter  would 
be  readily  agreed  upon,  and  that  by  the  spring  of  1825  at 
the  latest  the  company  would  have  all  of  the  many  conflict- 
ing interests  harmonized  and  be  ready  to  begin  cutting  the 
canal.  In  that  event  coal  would  be  coming  down  the  canal 
from  theAlleghanies  by  the  summer  of  1829.  With  the  large 
dividends  which  were  confidently  expected  in  that  event — 
the  company  was  forbidden  to  pay  a  dividend  of  more  than 
fifteen  per  cent,  in  any  one  year  until  the  western  section 
of  the  canal  should  be  completed — the  interest  was  to  be 
paid  on  the  original  loan  and  the  canal  pushed  steadily  west 
to  Pittsburg.  All  this  looked  reasonable  enough  to  those 
most  familiar  with  the  physical  obstacles  to  be  overcome. 
What  the  Convention  did  not  foresee  was  the  impossibility 
of  obtaining  in  this  epoch  of  stage  coaches  the  speed  neces- 
sary for  the  successful  prosecution  of  such  a  work  so  long 
as  two  jealous  state  legislatures  had  to  agree  with  the  Con- 
gress of  the  United  States  on  every  question  of  policy  that 
might  arise. 

As  an  example  of  the  almost  romantic  nature  of  what  was 
made  to  appear  so  practical  an  undertaking,  the  evolution  of 
the  name  is  in  point.  The  Joint  Commission  had  recom- 
mended, and  the  Virginia  act  of  1823  had  adopted  the  title, 
"Potomac  Canal  Company."  The  Washington  Convention, 
in  view  of  the  enlarged  purpose  of  the  enterprise,  had 
changed  the  name  to  the  "Union  Canal,"  which  was  to  con- 
sist of  an  eastern  section,  extending  from  Georgetown  to 


479]  Independent  Movement  for  a  Canal.  55 

the  Coal  Banks,  and  a  western  section  extending  from  the 
Coal  Banks  to  the  head  of  steamboat  navigation  on  the 
Ohio.  When  the  resolutions  containing  these  suggestions 
were  referred,  on  motion  of  Mr.  Mercer,  to  a  committee, 
another  change  of  name  was  proposed.  It  was  discovered 
that  a  short  canal  in  Pennsylvania  had  received  the  name, 
"Union  Canal,"  and  the  committee  recommended  that  their 
own  darling  be  christened,  in  allusion  to  the  waters  to  be 
connected,  the  "Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal."  From  that 
time  the  Convention  has  been  called  the  Chesapeake  and 
Ohio  Canal  Convention. 

The  resolutions  of  Mr.  Mercer,  as  revised  by  the  commit- 
tee of  which  Mr.  Mercer  himself  was  Chairman,  were  adopt- 
ed by  the  Convention  on  the  last  day  of  the  session. 
These  resolutions  contained  a  form  for  the  charter,  drawn 
on  the  lines  of  the  charter  of  the  Potomac  Company,  enacted 
by  Virginia  in  the  preceding  winter.  Separate  committees 
were  appointed  to  see  that  a  ^draft  of  the  charter  was 
promptly  introduced  at  the  coming  session  of  the  General 
Assemblies  of  Maryland,  Virginia,  Pennsylvania  and  Ohio, 
while  a  similar  committee  was  to  look  after  the  interests  of 
the  project  in  Congress.  In  addition  to  these  there  was  ap- 
pointed a  Central  Committee,  with  Mr.  Mercer  as  Chairman, 
to  give  direction  and  efficiency  to  all  the  various  forces  at 
work  in  behalf  of  the  canal.  Among  other  things  the  com- 
mittee was  empowered  to  prepare  and  introduce  into  Con- 
gress a  suitable  memorial,  gather  all  the  information  pos- 
sible, hasten  the  surveys,  have  commissioners  appointed  to 
open  books  for  subscription  to  stock,  and,  if  occasion  re- 
quired, call  another  meeting  of  the  Convention. 

The  Convention  of  1823  is  a  very  important  landmark  in 
the  development  of  the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal  project. 
Up  to  that  time  the  face  of  the  nation's  executive  had  been 
firmly  set  against  federal  participation  in  works  of  internal 
improvement.  After  the  Convention  the  National  Adminis- 
tration threw  to  the  winds  its  scruples  on  the  unconstitution- 
ally of  such  a  proceeding,  and  enlisted  heartily  and  effec- 


56  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal.  [480 

lively  in  the  project  to  which  the  Convention  had  first  given 
a  definite,  concrete  shape.  Up  to  this  point  the  development 
had  been  rather  that  of  a  theory — the  growth  of  an  idea, 
which  had  been  very  early  grasped,  and  clearly  expressed 
by  Washington.  After  1823  the  development  is  of  another 
sort. 

The  most  plausible  theory  may  prove  difficult  to  reduce 
to  practice.  Three  or  four  generations  had  passed  away 
while  Washington's  great  idea  was  slo\vly  maturing  into  the 
Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal  project,  with  a  definite  plan  for 
the  immediate  commencement  of  the  work.  To  theoretical 
and  logical  difficulties  must  be  added  henceforth  practical 
difficulties  of  the  most  serious  character.  Ideals  must  be 
reduced  to  realities,  and  means  provided  for  -  the  actual 
accomplishment  of  a  project  which,  for  magnitude  and 
bright  promise,  had  scarcely  been  equaled,  perhaps,  in  the 
history  of  transportation.1 

Before  the  Convention  of  1823,  argument  for  the  advan- 
tages and  even  necessity  of  better  transportation  facilities 
by  way  of  the  Potomac  had  formed  the  burden  of  examina- 
tions, reports  and  recommendations.  After  that  Conven- 
tion the  question  is  one  of  cost,  and  the  possibility  of  over- 
coming the  physical  and  other  obstacles  which  one  after 
another  confront  those  who  have  the  responsibility  of  lead- 
ing the  movement  to  success  or  failure. 

Finally  the  project  which  seemed  so  promising  to  the 
Convention  received  its  first  complete  expression  in  that 
body.  Washington,  nearly  three-quarters  of  a  century  before, 
had  indicated  in  general  the  lines  of  transportation  to  be 
first  developed.  The  Potomac  Company,  about  half  a  century 
before,  had  partially  opened  a  small  section  of  the  lines  in- 
dicated by  Washington.  But  it  remained  for  the  Chesapeake 
and  Ohio  Canal  Convention  of  1823,  assembled  in  the  Capi- 
tol building  in  the  capital  of  the  nation,  to  lay  down  upon 

1  Letter  of  General  Bernard,  printed  in  "Proceedings  of  the  Chesa- 
peake and  Ohio  Canal  Convention,"  Washington,  1823  and  1826,  60. 


481]  Independent  Movement  for  a  Canal.  57 

reasonable  data  a  complete  plan  of  communication  by  canal 
between  the  seat  of  government  on  the  Potomac  and  the 
head  of  steamboat  navigation  on  the  Ohio,  and  thence,  by  a 
route  which  had  just  been  pronounced  practicable,  to  the 
Great  Lakes. 

Such  was  the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal  project.  It 
remains  to  discover  how  far  the  enterprise  was  successful, 
and  to  notice  some  of  the  things  which  contributed  to  its 
ultimate  failure. 


CHAPTER  V. 
CHARTER  LEGISLATION. 

Ordinarily  a  charter  could  be  obtained  from  a  state  legis- 
lature for  the  asking,  and  usually  within  a  few  weeks  after 
the  application.  But  the  charter  for  a  great  national  water- 
way through  the  heart  of  the  country  was  a  different  mat- 
ter. Four  states  and  the  United  States  Government  were 
directly  interested,  and  the  consent  of  all  would  be  necessary 
to  the  validity  of  any  charter  for  the  entire  work.  When  it 
is  remembered  that  scarcely  a  generation  had  passed  since 
the  states  had  been  at  daggers'  points  over  their  commercial 
relations,  it  might  be  safely  predicted  that  to  harmonize  five 
of  these  conflicting  interests  in  a  joint  commercial  enterprise 
would  be  no  easy  task.  Fortunately,  the  consent  of  all  the 
parties  interested  was  not  necessary  to  the  inauguration  of 
the  work.  The  agreement  of  Virginia  and  Maryland,  how- 
ever, seemed  essential  in  any  measure  affecting  the  earlier 
Potomac  Company.  That  company  was  the  creature  of 
those  two  states ;  its  affairs  had  been  examined  and  reported 
upon  by  a  committee  acting  under  a  joint  authority,  and  it 
was  clear  that  the  charter  which  had  been  drafted  for  the  suc- 
cessor to  the  Potomac  Company,  could  not  become  opera- 
tive until  sanctioned  by  both  Maryland  and  Virginia. 

Maryland  had  neglected  to  confirm  the  charter  of  the 
Potomac  Canal  Company,  granted  by  Virginia  in  1823, 
hence  the  act  never  became  operative.  By  a  rather  unex- 
pected turn  in  the  fortunes  of  the  enterprise,  however,  that 
act  became  the  basis  of  the  charter  of  the  Chesapeake  and 
Ohio  Canal  Company. 

When  the  Convention  of  1823  met  in  Washington,  the 
most  important  business,  after  defining  the  project  and 

59 


60  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal.  [484 

deciding  upon  its  expediency  and  practicability  was  to 
agree  upon  the  terms  of  a  charter.  Mr.  Mercer,  who  had 
been  the  leader  of  the  movement  for  a  convention,  never 
tired  of  reminding  his  followers  that  the  charter  of  the  enter- 
prise which  was  to  cement  the  Union  and  bring  untold 
wealth  and  power  to  the  nation,  originated  in  an  "act  passed 
by  the  General  Assembly  of  Virginia  on  the  twenty-second 
of  February."  1  Accordingly,  though  a  few  changes  were 
made  recognizing  the  larger  purposes  of  the  proposed  com- 
pany, the  main  features  of  the  charter  of  the  Potomac  Canal 
Company  were  retained  in  the  new  charter,  and  separate 
committees  were  appointed  to  bring  the  proposed  charter 
before  the  legislatures  of  the  several  states,  and  before 
Congress.2 

Immediately  after  the  adjournment  of  the  Convention  the 
several  committees  addressed  themselves  confidently  to  the 
work  with  which  they  had  been  entrusted.  Bills  were  pre- 
pared on  the  basis  of  the  draft  which  had  been  adopted  by 
the  Convention,  and  after  approval  by  the  Central  Commit- 
'tee,  forthwith  introduced  into  the  legislature  of  Maryland 
and  Virginia.  The  committee  for  Pennsylvania  was  to 
postpone  action,  since  it  was  believed  the  problem  would  be 
simplified  by  leaving  the  two  states  most  directly  concerned 
to  agree  upon  the  details  of  a  charter  which  Pennsylvania 
and  Congress  could  then  be  asked  to  confirm.3 

Virginia  had  manifested  her  zeal  in  the  promotion  of 
internal  improvements  in  so  many  ways  within  the  preced- 
ing decade  that  there  could  be  no  reasonable  doubt  as  to  her 
action  upon  the  bill  for  the  incorporation  of  the  Chesapeake 
and  Ohio  Canal.  But  while  the  questions  as  to  the  prac- 
ticability and  urgent  necessity  of  the  work  remained  the 


1  Speech  of  Mr.  Mercer  in  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal  Conven- 
tion, 1823. 

2  "Proceedings  of  the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal   Convention," 
1823  and  1826. 

3  Ibid.,  38. 


485]  Charter  Legislation.  61 

same  as  they  had  been  when  the  previous  charter  had  been 
enacted,  the  fact  that  the  request  came  now  for  the  state 
to  charter  a  work  avowedly  proceeding  under  national  aus- 
pices, made  the  whole  situation  very  different.  Only 
twenty-five  years  had  elapsed  since  that  legislature  had 
fulminated  the  Virginia  resolutions,  and  now  it  was  asked 
to  incorporate  a  work  whose  chief  claim  to  support  was 
that  the  federal  power  would  be  strengthened.  There  were, 
however,  mitigating  circumstances  in  the  case.  The  Gen- 
eral Assembly  of  Virginia  still  believed  in  a  strict  construc- 
tion of  the  Constitution,  but  the  need  for  the  proposed 
improvement  amounted  almost  to  a  necessity,  besides  there 
was  nothing  in  the  charter  itself  which  required  the  Federal 
Government  to  prosecute  the  work.  Finally,  if  the  work  was 
actually  to  be  undertaken  by  the  Federal  Government  it  was 
not  yet  too  late  to  procure  an  amendment  to  the  Constitu- 
tion. Virginia  therefore  granted  the  charter,  but  insisted 
upon  coupling  with  her  sanction  a  clear  expression  of  her 
views  on  the  constitutional  question  involved.  With  this 
qualification,  so  to  say,  the  act  of  incorporation  was  passed; 
January  27,  1824,  scarcely  two  months  after  the  adjourn- 
ment of  the  Convention.1 

In  Maryland  the  measure  failed  chiefly  through  what 
must  be  called,  for  want  of  a  better  name,  jealousy. 

Little  or  no  difficulty  had  been  anticipated  in  procuring 
the  consent  of  all  the  states  interested,  while  in  Congress 
the  majority  for  the  "American  System"  had  become  large 
enough  to  render  favorable  action  practically  certain.  When 
however  it  became  known  that  the  General  Assembly  of 
Maryland  had  risen  without  acting  upon  the  charter,  its 
friends  began  to  realize  that  their  dreams  of  political  concert 
among  powers  economically  antagonistic  were  not  to  be- 
come realities,  at  least  for  the  present.  This  unexpected 
blow  brought  matters  up  with  a  round  turn,  since  the  spe- 

1  "Laws  of  Virginia,"  December  Session,  1823,  chap.  ;  also 

"Acts,  etc.,  Relating  to  the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal,"  I. 


<52  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal.  [486 

cial  committee  which  had  been  appointed  to  prepare  a  suit- 
able memorial  to  Congress  could  do  nothing  till  the  charter 
should  be  agreed  upon  by  the  two  states  most  directly 
concerned. 

The  committee  for  Pennsylvania,  which  had  been  in- 
structed to  await  the  action  of  Maryland  and  Virginia  in 
order  that  the  affairs  of  the  Potomac  Company  might  be 
satisfactorily  adjusted  between  those  states,  was  now  direct- 
ed to  use  all  fair  means  to  procure  the  assent  of  Pennsyl- 
vania to  the  charter  as  enacted  by  Virginia.1  In  case  of 
success  there  was  still  time,  before  the  end  of  the  session, 
to  obtain  the  consent  of  Congress.  But  the  legislature  of 
Pennsylvania  was  not  more  disposed  than  that  of  Maryland 
to  be  in  a  hurry.  The  interests  of  Philadelphia  must  be 
protected ;  there  were  internal  improvements  of  a  local  char- 
acter from  which  great  things  were  expected,  and  the  me- 
morial in  behalf  of  the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal  must 
wait.  To  bring  the  matter  before  Congress  in  that  condi- 
tion was  to  create  a  bad  impression,  so  the  whole  thing  was 
laid  over  till  the  next  session  of  the  Maryland  legislature, 
when  another  step  in  the  foredoomed  attempt  to  manage  a 
great  economic  interest  through  the  fickle  agency  of  poli- 
tics would  be  taken. 

At  length  the  General  Assembly  of  Maryland  was  con- 
vened, and  then  it  was  developed  that  not  only  Pennsylvania 
had  a  metropolis,  but  Maryland  also  must  see  to  it  that  her 
own  metropolis  did  not  suffer  by  the  state's  action  in  estab- 
lishing an  all-water  route  from  the  West  to  Georgetown 
instead  of  Baltimore.  Such  a  route  would  inevitably  bring 
to  Washington  by  quicker,  cheaper  and  more  certain  trans- 
portation much  of  that  Western  trade  that  had  hitherto 
found  its  way  to<  Baltimore.  Maryland's  statesmen  did  well 
to  hesitate,  but  their  opposition  was  not  obstinate.  Balti- 
more had  already  become  one  of  the  most  important  sea- 

1  ''Proceedings  of  the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal  Convention," 
1823  and  1826,  39. 


487]  Charter  Legislation.  63 

ports  of  the  country  and  her  interests  naturally  demanded 
protection.  Since  the  only  means  by  which  she  could  par- 
ticipate in  the  benefits  of  the  proposed  canal  was  through  a 
branch  canal,  the  right  to  tap  the  main  line  at  some  conve- 
nient point  in  Maryland  or  the  District  of  Columbia  was  the 
only  condition  upon  which  the  charter  would  be  confirmed. 
The  condition  was  readily  granted  by  the  Central  Commit- 
tee. With  this  concession  expressly  stipulated  the  Virginia 
act  of  incorporation  was  confirmed  by  Maryland,  January 
3J>  1825.* 

More  than  a  year  had  now  passed  since  the  Convention 
of  1823,  and  yet  the  charter  which  at  that  time  it  was 
thought  might  be  secured  in  three  or  four  months  at  most, 
still  lacked  the  sanction  of  Congress  and  the  consent  of  the 
Potomac  Company  before  the  new  company  could  be  organ- 
ized. True,  these  last  steps  were  generally  understood  to 
be  little  more  than  forms,  but  even  then  the  canal  could  not 
proceed  beyond  the  western  limits  of  the  state  of  Maryland, 
because  Pennsylvania  had  twice  turned  a  deaf  ear  to  the 
appeals  of  the  committee  appointed  for  that  state.  Never- 
theless it  was  determined  to  bring  the  matter,  as  it  stood, 
before  Congress  without  further  delay.  A  bill  confirming 
the  acts  of  Virginia  and  Maryland  was  introduced  and 
promptly  passed  by  that  body,  March  3,  1825.  Almost  the 
last  official  act  of  President  Monroe  was  to  sign  this  bill, 
which,  less  than  two  years  before,  in  his  famous  veto  mes- 
sage, he  had  laboriously  proved  to  be  unconstitutional. 
When,  on  the  sixteenth  of  May,  1825,  the  Potomac  Com- 
pany formally  gave  its  consent,  there  was  no  longer  any 
legal  obstacle  to  the  organization  of  the  proposed  company. 
Finally,  the  legislature  of  Pennsylvania  passed  an  act,  Feb- 
ruary 9,  1826,  in  which,  upon  numerous  conditions,  the 
sanction  of  that  state  was  given  to  the  canal. 

Thus  more  than  two  years  had  been  occupied  in  procur- 
ing the  legislation  which  the  convention  of  1823  had  hoped 

1  "Laws  of  Maryland,"  December  Session,  1824. 


64  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal.  [488 

for  within  a  few  months.  But  the  end  was  not  yet;  new 
difficulties  were  met  at  almost  every  step.  It  became  neces- 
sary, therefore,  again  and  again  to  amend  the  act  of  incor- 
poration, and  this  could  be  done  only  through  the  same 
tedious,  cumbrous  process  of  legislation  which  had  created 
the  charter. 

The  first  of  these  amendments  came  in  1827,  when 
Maryland  passed  an  act,  February  5,  to  bring  the  charter 
into  harmony  with  the  report  of  the  United  States  Board 
of  Internal  Improvement,  by  allowing  the  company  to  ter- 
minate the  eastern  section  of  the  canal  "at  or  near  Cum- 
berland," and  to  substitute  inclined  planes  and  railways 
across  the  Alleghenies  if  it  be  found  expedient.1  But  be- 
fore the  amendment  could  carry  any  authority  the  confir- 
mation of  Virginia  and  the  Congress  of  the  United  States 
must  be  secured.  Probably  that  would  be  no  difficult  task, 
but  the  successful  operation  of  such  complicated  political 
machinery  requires  time  under  the  most  favorable  circum- 
stances. Virginia  acted  promptly,  confirming  the  amend- 
ment February  26,  1827.  Action  in  Congress  was  not 
obtained  till  May  23,  1828,  and  by  the  Potomac  Company, 
July  10,  1828. 

A  further  amendment  was  enacted  by  Maryland  in  1828, 
making  the  stock  of  the  company  personal  property  entitled 
to  all  the  rights  and  privileges  usually  enjoyed  by  that  class 
of  property,  and  giving  to  aliens  the  power  to  hold  the 
same.2  Once  more  the  legislative  machinery  was  set 
agoing  and  this  amendment  was  confirmed  by  Virginia  Feb- 
ruary 26,  1828,  by  Congress  May  23,  1828,  and  by  the  canal 
company  (which  had  been  organized  in  June  preceding), 
on  the  third  of  July,  1828.  Finally,  the  Potomac  Company, 
which  had  not  yet  formally  surrendered  its  charter,  gave 
consent  July  10,  1828. 

But  the  canal  project  had  already  been  long  in  play  as  a 

1  "Laws  of  Maryland,"  December  Session,   1826,  chap.  2,  sec.  2. 

2  Ibid.,  1827,  chap.  61,  sec.  2. 


489]  Charter  Legislation.  65 

political  foot-ball,  and  it  was  now  the  turn  of  Virginia.  On 
the  twenty-seventh  of  February,  1829,  an  amendment  was 
passed  regulating  the  height  of  bridges  which  might  be 
built  over  the  canal.  Of  course,  the  confirmatory  machinery 
was  regularly  put  in  motion,  and  the  amendment,  in  due 
process  of  time,  became  law.  One  more  amendment  Vir- 
ginia passed,  February  13,  1830,  giving  permission  to  the 
stockholders  to  commence  the  western  section  of  the  canal, 
and  prescribing  the  conditions  under  which  the  work  might 
proceed.  Other  amendments  were  passed  from  time  to 
time  as  the  changing  fortunes  of  the  enterprise  required, 
but  it  is  not  necessary  to  carry  our  chronological  summary 
further.  In  the  next  chapter  we  return  to  the  narrative 
where  it  was  dropped  in  Chapter  III. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

THE  FEDERAL  GOVERNMENT  ASSUMES 
CONTROL.1 

It  is  necessary  at  this  point  to  recapitulate  the  steps  by 
which  the  Federal  Government  committed  itself  to  internal 
improvements  of  any  kind.  About  1820  the  party  in  favor 
of  federal  public  works,  seeing  little  hope  of  bringing  over 
the  administration  to  the  full  program  of  the  "American  Sys- 
tem," began  to  look  about  for  some  specific  object  upon 
which  the  surplus  to  be  produced  by  a  protective  tariff  might 
be  best  expended.  The  Cumberland  road  furnished  such 
an  object  ready  prepared  to  their  hand.  Made,  and  more 
than  once  prepared,  by  the  Federal  Government,  why  might 
not  this  highway  be  used  as  the  "entering  wedge"  for  a 
general  system  of  internal  improvement,  both  the  need 
and  the  possibility  of  which  were  being  pressed  with  greater 
chance  of  success  at  each  succeeding  Congress  ? 

In  accordance  with  this  plan  Congress  passed  a  bill  late 
in  the  spring  of  1822,  making  an  appropriation  for  the 
repair  of  the  Cumberland  Road.2  But  once  more  the 
bright  prospects  of  the  plan  were  darkened  by  executive  ink. 
The  veto  of  this  bill  was  followed,  May  4,  1822,  by  Monroe's 
famous  message  on  the  subject  of  internal  improvement.3 
After  treating  at  length  the  constitutional  question,  and 

1  On  the  subject   of   Chapters    VI  and   IX,  see  "Letter  of  J.  P. 
Kennedy."    Washington,  J.  and  G.  S.  Gideon,  printers,  1844.     This 
letter  did  not  come  to  my  notice  till  both  these  chapters  had  been 
written.     It  will  be  seen  that  my  conclusions  are  supported  through- 
out by  the  letter. 

2  "Annals  of  Congress." 

3  Richardson's    "Messages    and    Papers    of   the    Presidents,"    II, 
144-183. 

67 


68  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal.  [492 

assuming  that  he  had  "demonstrated  Congress  have  not 
the  power  to  undertake  a  system  of  internal  improvement," 
the  President  urged,  in  view  of  the  manifest  advantages 
of  such  a  system,  that  an  amendment  remedying  the  defect 
in  the  Constitution  be  at  once  submitted  to  the  states.1 

No  amendment  was  ever  procured,  but  the  subject  was 
kept  constantly  before  Congress  by  petitions  from  the  peo- 
ple and  by  frequent  reports  of  committees  in  the  House  of 
Representatives.2  Such  a  report  had  been  heard  in  the 
House  on  the  second  of  January,  1822,  in  which,  however, 
pleading  was  more  prominent  than  report.3  "In  what  age 
or  nation  has  the  power  of  improving  a  country  been 
abused?"  asks  the  report.4  "No  power  can  be  more  safely 
placed  in  the  hands  of  the  people."  "Even  the  unsuccessful 
attempts  at  great  undertakings  have  received  the  admiration 
of  mankind."  Such  were  the  arguments  dinned  into  the 
ears  of  the  House  almost  without  intermission. 

But  the  friends  of  internal  improvement  were  far  from 
being  compelled  to  rely  wholly  upon  a  priori  arguments. 
Besides  the  National  Road,  which  appeared  to  furnish  inex- 
haustible ammunition,  there  were  the  District  cities,  for 
whose  prosperity  Congress  must  be  held  directly  account- 
able. 

Numerous  petitions  had  been  received  from  the  Dis- 
trict and  from  the  counties  adjacent  to  the  Potomac, 
praying  the  aid  of  the  Federal  Government  in  improving 
the  navigation  of  the  Potomac  River.  The  committee  on 
the  District  of  Columbia,  therefore,  made  a  report  on  the 
third  of  May,  1822,  going  into  the  subject  of  internal  im- 
provements at  some  length,  and  claiming  that  the  practica- 
bility of  a  canal  in  the  Potomac  Valley  was  no  longer  open 
to  serious  doubt.5 

1  Richardson's    "Messages    and    Papers    of   the    Presidents,"    II, 
144-183. 

2  I7th  Congress,  ist  Session,  XI,  doc.  in,  i. 

3  Ibid.,  Reports,  etc.,  doc.  No.  98.  *  Ibid.,  7. 
5  Ibid.,  XL,  doc.  No.  HI,  29. 


493]         The  Federal  Government  Assumes  Control.  69 

Some  time  before  this  a  resolution  in  the  House  had 
aimed  to  procure  surveys  and  estimates  for  the  proposed 
canal,  but  the  Board  of  Public  Works  of  Virginia  had  anti- 
cipated such  action  and  the  required  data  were  already  at 
hand.  Those  who,  in  spite  of  mathematical  calculations, 
still  feared  that  the  Alleghany  ridge  might  prove  to  be  an 
insuperable  obstacle,  were  referred  to  the  canal  of  Reynosa 
in  Spain,  where  a  descent  of  three  thousand  feet  had  been 
triumphantly  effected  in  the  short  compass  of  three  leagues. 
One  thousand  feet  of  this  descent  had  been  accomplished  in 
the  well-nigh  incredible  distance  of  less  than  half  a  league, 
while  the  tunnel  uniting  the  Thames  with  the  Severn  in 
England,  was  as  long  as  that  proposed  by  the  Board  of 
Public  Works  of  Virginia  to  connect  the  sources  of  the 
Potomac  with  those  of  the  Ohio.1 

The  financial  plan  rested  upon  the  hypothecation  by  the 
Federal  Government  of  the  lots  for  sale  in  the  cities  of  the 
District  of  Columbia.  On  this  security  the  government 
might  borrow  two  and  a  half  millions  for  which  it  was  be- 
lieved the  canal  could  be  made,  and  with  the  completion  of 
the  work  in  three  years,  the  advance  in  the  value  of  the  lots 
would  more  than  repay  the  loan. 2 

With  the  assembling  of  Congress  in  December,  with  its 
clear  majority  for  the  "American  System,"  there  came  also  a 
good  omen  for  internal  improvement  from  a  quarter  whence 
it  might  have  been  least  expected.  The  President,  in  his 
annual  message,  notwithstanding  that  his  plea  for  consti- 
tutional amendment  had  not  been  heeded,  returned  to  the 
subject  of  the  Cumberland  Road,  declaring  that  if  Congress 
had  power  to  make  the  road  it  surely  had  power  to  keep 
it  from  going  to  ruin.  Then  followed  this  significant  ex- 
pression: "Under  our  happy  system  the  people  are  the 
sole  and  exclusive  fountain  of  power."  3  If  the  people  were 

1  Benton's  "Debates  of  Congress,"  VII,  448. 
2 17th  Congress,  ist  Session,  XI,  doc.  HI,  7,  8. 
3  Richardson,  II,  191. 


70  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal.  [494 

bent  upon  a  system  of  internal  improvement  under  federal 
control  and  at  the  charge  of  the  federal  treasury,  why  should 
their  chief  executive  do  more  than  had  already  been  done 
to  prevent  the  accomplishment  of  their  purpose?  It  was 
evident  to  all  thinking  men  that  Monroe  had  come  over  to 
the  side  of  the  majority. 

In  May  Congress  had  been  told  that  authority  for  its  acts 
must  be  found  in  the  Constitution,  and  that  the  Constitution 
gave  them  no  power  to  appropriate  money  for  internal  im- 
provement. In  December  it  is  the  people  who  are  "the 
sole  and  exclusive  fountain  of  power,"  and  the  Federal  Gov- 
ernment is  at  last  ready,  after  a  fruitless  struggle  of  more 
than  fifteen  years,  to>  undertake  a  gigantic  system  of  internal 
improvement  reaching  every  section  of  the  country  from 
Maine  to  Florida  and  involving  the  ultimate  expenditure  of 
millions  o<f  dollars.  The  estimates  were  nearly  double  the 
entire  annual  expenses  of  the  Federal  Government  at  that 
time. 

In  this  state  of  affairs  it  seemed  to  the  friends  of  the  Po- 
tomac route  that  only  one  thing  more  was  necessary  in 
order  to  have  Congress  assume  definite  responsibility  for 
the  proposed  canal.  That  one  needful  thing  was  the  de- 
mand of  the  people.  During  the  following  summer  were 
held  the  numerous  public  meetings  in  which  the  conven- 
tion of  1823  originated.  The  enthusiasm  which  that  conven- 
tion discovered  in  favor  of  a  canal  to  unite  the  waters  of 
the  Potomac  and  the  Ohio  furnished  the  required  popular 
approval.  The  President  was  now  without  grounds  for 
further  hesitation,  and  in  his  annual  message  of  December, 
1823,  he  recommended  that  Congress  "authorize  by  an  ade- 
quate appropriation  the  employment  of  a  suitable  number 
of  the  officers  of  the  corps  of  engineers  to  examine  the 
unexplored  ground  during  the  next  season  and  to  report 
their  opinion  thereon.1 

As  a  sort  of  preamble  to*  this  radical  departure  from  the 

1  Richardson,  II,  216. 


495]         The  Federal  Government  Assumes  Control.  71 

previous  policy  of  the  government,  Monroe  summed  up 
under  three  main  heads  the  strongest  arguments  of  the 
internal  improvement  party,  and  then  added  a  plain  state- 
ment of  his  own  position  in  the  matter.  Monroe's  words 
may  be  regarded  as  the  platform  upon  which  the  Federal 
Government  proceeded  in  all  that  was  done  in  the  matter 
of  internal  improvement,  and  as  the  highest  authority  on 
the  subject.  Monroe  at  that  time  was  not  arguing  for  an 
indefinite  system  of  internal  improvement,  but  was  setting 
forth  the  reasons  why  the  Federal  Government  should  con- 
struct the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal.  The  summary  is 
as  follows : 

First,  "A  great  portion  of  the  produce  of  the  very  fertile 
country  through  which  it  would  pass  would  find  a  market 
through  that  channel." 

Second,  "Troops  might  be  moved  with  great  facility  in 
war,  with  cannon  and  every  kind  of  munition,  and  in  either 
direction." 

Third,  "Connecting  the  Atlantic  with  the  Western 
country  in  a  line  passing  through  the  seat  of  the  National 
Government,  it  would  contribute  essentially  to  strengthen 
the  bond  of  union  itself." 

For  such  a  national  object  as  this  Congress  possessed  the 
power,  Monroe  believed,  to  appropriate  money,  on  condi- 
tion that  the  jurisdiction  remain  with  the  states  through 
which  the  canal  might  pass.1 

The  Twenty-third  Congress  had  a  good  working  majority 
in  favor  of  the  "American  System"  and  was,  therefore,  not 
slow  to  act  upon  the  President's  suggestion.  On  the  ninth 
of  December  a  resolution  to  refer  the  subject  of  roads  and 
canals  to  a  standing  committee  was  adopted  by  a  vote  of 
eighty-six  to  seventy-seven.2  The  committee  was  immedi- 
ately appointed,  and  on  the  fifteenth  of  December  a  bill  was 
introduced  appropriating  thirty  thousand  dollars  "to  pro- 
cure the  necessary  surveys  and  estimates  on  the  subject  of 

1  Richardson,  II,  216.      2  "Annals  of  Congress,"  vol.  1823-24,  808. 


72  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal.  [496 

roads  and  canals."  *  On  April  30,  1824,  this  bill,  having 
passed  both  Houses  of  Congress,  received  the  approval  of 
the  President. 

Monroe,  without  delay,  appointed  a  chief  and  two  assist- 
ant engineers,  primarily  for  the  purpose  of  procuring  sur- 
veys and  estimates  for  the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal. 
Thus  the  United  States  Board  of  Internal  Improvement 
grew  directly  out  of  the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal  project 
and  the  United  States  Government  became  committed  to 
the  prosecution  of  the  greatest  public  work  which  had  up 
to  that  time  engaged  the  attention  of  men. 

1  "Annals  of  Congress,"  vol.  1823-24,  828,  829. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

THE  UNITED  STATES   GOVERNMENT  SURVEY 

AND  ESTIMATE  FOR  THE  CHESAPEAKE 

AND  OHIO  CANAL. 

The  person  selected  to  be  chief  of  the  United  States 
Board  of  Internal  Improvement  was  General  S.  Bernard, 
a  Frenchman,  who  had  been  for  some  time  virtually  at  the 
head  of  the  corps  of  United  States  engineers,  though  with 
the  title  of  assistant.  He  was  recognized  as  one  of  the  fore- 
most engineers  of  his  time.  His  assistants  were  Lieuten- 
ant-Colonel Totten,  of  the  corps  of  engineers,  and  John  L. 
Sullivan,  Esq.,  civil  engineer.1  Besides  these  three,  a  con- 
siderable number  of  army  engineers  and  civil  surveyors 
were  attached  to  the  board. 

Up  to  this  time,  it  is  true,  the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal 
had  not  been  mentioned  by  name  in  the  proceedings  of  the 
Federal  Government.  But  if  what  has  been  already  related 
could  leave  any  doubt  as  to  what,  in  the  plans  of  the  Federal 
Government,  really  constituted,  for  immediate  and  practical 
purposes,  the  "system"  of  roads  and  canals  about  to  be 
undertaken,  that  doubt  disappears  in  the  light  of  the  direc- 
tions which  were  to  guide  the  board  in  their  work.  These 
directions  were  as  follows:  "The  board  will  proceed  to 
make  immediate  reconnoissance  of  the  country  between 
the  tide-waters  of  the  Potomac  and  the  head  of  navigation 
on  the  Ohio,  and  between  the  Ohio  and  Lake  Erie,  for  the 
purpose  of  ascertaining  the  practicability  of  communication 
between  these  points,  of  designating  the  most  suitable  route 

1  See  letter  of  General  Macomb,  May  31,  1824,  printed  in  Senate 
Document  No.  32,  8,  i8th  Congress,  2d  Session. 

73 


74  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal.  [498 

for  the  same  and  of  forming  plans  and  estimates  in  detail  of 
the  expense  of  erection."  x  Then  the  board  was  urged  to 
push  the  work  on  this  important  line  in  order  to  have  a 
report  ready  for  the  next  session  of  Congress. 

For  two  successive  years  more  than  half  the  entire  ap- 
propriation for  surveys  was  expended  on  the  Potomac 
route  alone,2  while  little  was  done  on  any  other  line  beyond 
a  reconnoissance  upon  which  future  surveys  might  be  based. 
Following  the  directions  of  his  superior,  Chief  Engineer 
Bernard  turned  his  attention  almost  exclusively  to  the 
Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal.  In  July,  1824,  was  completed 
the  organization  of  three  brigades  of  engineers,  two  of  which 
were  assigned  to  the  summit  of  the  Alleghanies,  and  the 
third  to  the  valley  of  the  Potomac.3 

The  parties  assigned  to  the  mountains  were  not  able  to 
complete  their  portion  of  the  work  until  the  next  season. 
In  the  valley  of  the  Potomac  fever  soon  disabled  both 
officers  and  men,  therefore  little  was  accomplished  there 
before  1825.  In  that  summer  the  engineers  were  in  the 
field  in  April,  three  brigades  east  of  the  Ohio  River  and  one 
between  Pittsburg  and  Lake  Erie.4 

The  character  of  the  survey  and  estimate  made  for  the 
Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal  by  the  United  States  Board 
of  Internal  Improvement  can  only  be  appreciated  fully 
when  it  is  remembered  that  the  chief  of  the  board  was  a 
military  engineer  of  the  first  rank,  who,  according  to  his 
long-established  custom,  did  his  work  with  little  reference 
to  temporary  or  economic  considerations.  Fully  alive  to 
the  national  significance  of  the  proposed  work  General  Ber- 

1  i8th  Congress,  2d  Session,  Senate  Doc.  No.  32. 

2  igth  Congress,   ist  Session.     See  table  at  the  end  of  Document 
No.  149. 

3  Letter  of  General   Bernard  to  General   Macomb,   December  26, 
1825,  printed  in  "Proceedings  of  the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal 
Convention,"  etc.,  58-60. 

4  See   the   MSS.   report  of  this   survey  in  the  War  Department,, 
Washington. 


499]  The  United  States  Government  Survey.  75 

nard  proceeded  on  precisely  the  principles  which  had 
guided  him  so  recently  in  the  construction  of  Fortress  Mon- 
roe. He  did  the  United  States  the  honor  to  believe  that 
Congress  was  perfectly  serious  in  its  intentions ;  that  the 
country  was  entirely  competent  from  a  financial  point  of 
view,  and  was  about  to  construct  a  work  which  was  to  be 
the  pride  and  glory  of  the  nation  for  generations  to  come.1 

The  plans  for  the  surveys  were  as  follows : 

"The  complete  project  of  a  canal  requires  great  researches 
and  careful  investigation  of  its  smallest  details." 

I.  There   must  be  the  general   reconnoitering  of  the 
ground. 

II.  An  exact  survey  must  be  made  to  determine  accu- 
rately the  topography  of  the  region  to  be  traversed,  as  well 
as  differences  of  level  and  water  supply. 

III.  Exact  drawings  of  the  work  must  be  made  and  the 
cost  of  the  construction  accurately  calculated.2 

Upon  these  principles  and  guided  by  the  work  of  pre- 
vious surveyors,  especially  that  of  Mr.  James  Shriver  on 
the  summit  of  the  Alleghanies  in  the  summer  of  1823,  the 
surveys  went  slowly  forward,  and  on  the  fourteenth  of  Feb- 
ruary, 1825,  the  results  of  the  previous  season's  work  were 
transmitted  to  the  President  and  by  him  were  laid  before 
Congress. 

The  projected  canal  was  described  in  two  parts : 
I.     The  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal  proper,  extending 
irom  tide-water  in  the  Potomac  to  Pittsburg  on  the  Ohio. 


1  See  "General  Considerations"  upon  the  conclusion  of  the  work 
of  the  Board  of  Internal  Improvement,  Document  No.  10,  ipth  Con- 
gress, 2d  Session.     State  Papers,  II,  63-80. 

2  i8th  Congress,  2d  Session,  Senate  Doc.  No.  32,  14. 

3  See  elaborate  report  of  Mr.   Shriver's  work,  entitled  "An  Ac- 
count of  Surveys  and  Examinations,  with  Remarks  and  Documents, 
Relative   to   the    Projected   Chesapeake    and    Ohio   and    Lake    Erie 
Canals."     By  James  Shriver,  Baltimore,  1824.     The  work  is  accom- 
panied by  a  map  of  the  summit  level  region,  which  differs  somewhat 
from  the  plan  prepared  by  the  Board  of  Internal  Improvement. 


76  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal.  [500 

II.  The  Ohio  and  Erie  Canal,  extending  from  Pittsburg 
through  either  Ohio  or  Pennsylvania  to  Lake  Erie. 

The  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal  proper  was  subdivided 
into  three  sections : 

I.  The  eastern  section,  extending  from  tide-water  in  the 
Potomac  to  the  mouth  of  Savage  River. 

II.  The  middle  section,  extending  from  the  mouth  of 
Savage  River  to  the  Youghiogheny  River  at  the  mouth  of 
Bear  Creek. 

III.  The  western  section,  extending  from  the  mouth  of 
Bear  Creek  through  the  valley  of  the  Youghiogheny  to 
Pittsburg. 

In  the  eastern  section  the  canal  was  to  follow  the  north 
bank  of  the  Potomac.  The  surveys  and  estimates  were 
completed  accordingly  and  the  canal  was  located  by  the 
United  States  engineers  on  the  Maryland  shore. 

The  middle  section  was,  naturally  enough,  found  to  pre- 
sent the  greatest  difficulties  to  be  met  with  in  the  entire 
project.  This  section  included  the  summit  level  of  the 
canal,  offering  at  the  same  time  the  greatest  elevation  to  be 
overcome  and  the  scantiest  supply  of  water.  To  this  sec- 
tion, therefore,  the  board  had  devoted  most  of  its  energies 
during  the  season  of  1824.  Here  it  was  that  the  surveyors 
were  visited  about  the  middle  of  September,  1824,  by  Mr. 
Calhoun,  then  Secretary  of  War,  under  whose  supervision 
the  work  had  been  undertaken.1 

The  summit  level  had  been  established  at  a  bridge  across 
Deep  Creek,  and  here,  in  the  presence  of  their  distinguished 
visitor,  the  engineers  carefully  measured  the  supply  of  water. 
It  was  found  that  there  was  enough  water  to  fill  a  lock  sixty 
feet  long,  twelve  feet  wide  and  ten  feet  deep  in  thirteen  min- 
utes, notwithstanding  the  season  had  been  unusually  dry. 
From  that  time  the  question  of  water  supply,  which  had 
occasioned  much  uneasiness  on  the  part  of  the  friends  of 
the  project,  was  considered  as  finally  settled. 

1  Niks'  Register,  3d  Series,  III,  53. 


501]          The  United  States  Government  Survey.  77 

The  most  important  work  done  on  this  section  was  the 
tedious,  careful  comparison  of  routes  in  order  to  determine 
the  best  location  for  the  tunnel  which  was  known  to  be  re- 
quired. The  results  of  the  summer's  work  seemed  to  point 
to  what  was  known  as  the  Youghiogheny  Route,  by  way 
of  Savage  River,  Crabtree  Creek  and  thence  by  tunnel  from 
a  small  branch  of  Crabtree  Creek  to  a  small  branch  of  Deep 
Creek,  on  the  western  side  of  the  ridge. 

In  1824  the  western  section  had  received  little  more  than 
a  preliminary  examination.  It  was  then  determined  that 
that  part  of  the  canal  should  lie  on  the  right  bank  of  the 
Youghiogheny  and  the  Monongahela.  It  was  noted  that 
this  section  would  require  some  expensive  work,  such  as 
aqueducts  and  deep  cuts,  but  there  was  no  question  of  its 
ultimate  practicability.  Contributary  streams  to  the  Yough- 
iogheny and  Monongahela  were  closely  observed  and  a 
favorable  location  for  at  least  one  branch  canal  selected. 

While  the  brigades  of  Captain  McNiell  and  Captain 
Shriver  were  thus  respectively  employed  on  the  eastern  and 
western  side  of  the  summit  level,  members  of  the  Board  of 
Internal  Improvement  were  making  an  examination  of  the 
Ohio  country.  This  part  of  the  project,  described  in  the 
report  as  the  "Ohio  and  Erie  Canal,"  was  subdivided  into 
(i)  the  southern  section,  extending  from  Pittsburg  to  the 
summit  level  on  the  watershed  between  the  Ohio  and  Lake 
Erie,  and  (2)  the  northern  section,  extending  from  the  sum- 
mit level  to  Lake  Erie,  near  the  mouth  of  the  Ashtabula. 

For  this  part  of  the  canal  four  possible  routes  were  exam- 
ined, but  they  differed  in  little  except  the  location  of  the 
summit  level,  a  practical  question  which  would  have  to  be 
determined  ultimately  by  the  water  supply.  In  any  case 
the  route  would  lie  by  way  of  the  Ohio  to  the  mouth  of  Big 
Beaver  Creek,  and  thence,  probably,  along  the  valley  of  that 
stream  to  the  summit  level. 

From  the  summit  level  to  Lake  Erie  the  routes  differed 
considerably.  Cleveland  was  suggested  as  the  northern 
terminus  of  the  great  work,  on  the  ground  that  an  earlier 


78  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal.  [502 

opening  would  be  possible  in  the  spring.  But  the  final 
recommendation  was  in  favor  of  the  mouth  of  Ashtabula 
Creek,  on  the  ground  of  economy — shorter  route  and  less 
lockage.1 

Notwithstanding  the  name,  "Ohio  and  Erie  Canal,"  this 
section  was  none  the  less  understood  to>  be  merely  a  part  of 
the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal,  "forming  part  of  that 
noble  line  of  artificial  communication  which  will  join  the 
vast  regions  of  our  Northern  Lakes  with  the  Capital  of  the 
Republic." 2  The  indefinite  character  of  the  information 
contained  in  the  report,  however,  did  not  warrant  congres- 
sional enactment,  and  so  the  matter  was  postponed. 

April,  1825,  found  four  brigades  of  engineers  in  the  field, 
three  on  the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal  proper,  and  one  on 
the  Ohio  section  just  described.3  All  through  that  season  the 
work  went  slowly  forward.  Again  Congress  met  and  again 
there  was  no  official  information  or  report  upon  which  to 
base  intelligent  action.  As  the  session  wore  to  its  close  with- 
out any  report  from  the  engineers,  the  friends  of  the  project 
began  to  grow  restless.  To  anxious  letters  of  inquiry  4  the 


1  Since  this  part  of  the  project  was  carried  no  further,  a  summary 
of  the  route  gathered  from  the  MSS.  report  in  the  War  Depart- 
ment at  Washington  may  be  of  interest  : 


Champion  Swamp  Route,  .    .       115  342  557 

The  Long  Route,  ......       140  470  749 

Connert  Route,  .......       113  470  803 

The  Connert  route  was  recommended  by  the  Commissioners.     See 
i8th  Congress,  2d  Session  ;  Senate  Document,  No.  32,  55. 

2  "Report  of  the  United  States  Board  of  Internal  Improvement." 
Printed  as  Senate  Document  No.  32,  i8th  Congress,  2d  Session,  53. 

3  Letter  of  General   Bernard  to  General   Macomb,   December  26, 
1825.     Printed  in  "Proceedings  of  the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal 
Convention,"  Washington,  1823  and  1826,  59,  60. 

4  See  copies  of  letters  from  Mr.  Mercer,  printed  in  "Proceedings, 
etc."     Note  2,  Appendix. 


503]          The  United  States  Government  Survey.  79 

chief  engineer,  General  Bernard,  replied  that  estimates  of 
such  importance  could  not  be  grounded  upon  conjecture 
and  misleading  analogies,  for  there  were  no  canals  "to  be 
compared  in  magnitude  and  difficulties  to  be  overcome, 
with  the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal."  * 

Finally,  however,  on  the  twenty-first  of  March,  1826,  Ber- 
nard was  induced  to  give  the  results  which  had,  up  to  that 
time,  been  obtained  by  the  board  with  reference  to  the  east- 
ern section,  i.  e.,  from  Cumberland  to  Georgetown.  This 
section,  as  drafted  by  the  United  States  Board  of  Internal 
Improvement,  was  to  cost,  in  round  numbers  and  exclusive 
of  the  item  of  contingencies,  what  was  for  that  time  the 
enormous  sum  of  eight  million  eighty-five  thousand  dollars. 

The  publication  of  the  board's  estimate,  in  the  spring  of 
1826,  marks  a  turning  point  in  the  history  of  the  Chesapeake 
and  Ohio  Canal.  Up  to  that  time  the  most  liberal  estimate 
for  the  eastern  section  had  stood  at  two  million  seven 
hundred  and  fifty  thousand  dollars.  The  friends  of  the 
project  had  first  hoped  to  begin  the  work  of  construc- 
tion in  the  spring  of  1825,  only  to  find  themselves  dis- 
appointed by  the  slow  processes  of  politics.  Taking  cour- 
age again  they  had  confidently  looked  forward  to  the  spring 
of  1826  for  tangible  results.  Now  they  were  dismayed. 
They  saw  that  the  work  simply  could  not  proceed  in  the 
face  of  such  an  estimate,  and  there  was  not  sufficient  time 
left  to  obtain  a  revised  estimate  before  the  end  of  the  ses- 
sion of  Congress.  However,  when  it  was  learned  that  the 
General  Assembly  of  Maryland  had  passed  an  act  subscrib- 
ing five  hundred  thousand  dollars  to  the  stock  of  the  pro- 
posed company,  the  Central  Committee  thought  it  worth 
while  to  memorialize  Congress  without  further  delay.  From 
this  source  the  committee  expected  to  realize  one  million 
dollars.  The  memorial  was  referred  and  a  favorable  report 
was  obtained,  Mr.  Andrew  Stewart,  of  Pittsburg,  one  of  the 
leaders  of  the  project,  being  at  that  time  chairman  of  the 

1  Letter  of  General  Bernard,  cited  in  note  2,  60. 


80  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal.  [504 

House  Committee  on  Roads  and  Canals.1  But  the  project 
got  no  farther,  for,  a  few  days  later,  Congress  adjourned. 

The  ambitious  project  for  a  canal  through  the  heart  of 
the  young  republic  had,  after  four  years  of  hopeful  strug- 
gle, at  last  stuck  fast  in  a  slough  of  figures  unwittingly  pre- 
pared by  the  friends  of  the  enterprise.  The  time  had  come 
for  decisive  action.  The  friends  of  the  enterprise  decided 
upon  heroic  measures.  They  would  call  another  meeting 
of  what  had  been  known  since  1823  as  the  Chesapeake  and 
Ohio  Canal  Convention,  prove  that  the  estimate  of  the  United 
States  Board  of  Internal  Improvement  was  too  large  by 
half,  procure,  besides  private  subscriptions  to  the  stock  of 
the  company,  a  million  dollars  from  Congress,  a  million 
and  a  half  from  the  District  cities — Washington,  George- 
town and  Alexandria — and,  with  something  less  than  four 
million  dollars  in  sight,  including  private  subscriptions,  pro- 
ceed with  the  construction  of  the  canal. 

But  for  one  element  of  weakness  which  the  friends  of  the 
enterprise  seem  never  to  have  taken  sufficiently  into 
account,  this  plan  would  probably  have  succeeded.  That 
element  of  weakness  was  the  delay  involved.  Delay  was 
necessary  to  the  execution  of  the  plan,  and  delay  meant 
defeat,  because  both  in  Maryland  and  in  Congress  the 
canal's  chief  sources  of  strength,  the  forces  which  ultimately 
led  to  defeat,  were  rapidly  gathering  head  and  needed  only 
time  to  develop  their  full  strength.  In  1826  a  new  Con- 
gress was  elected  and  the  "American  System"  was  doomed. 
In  that  same  year  prominent  business  men  of  Baltimore 
were  diligently  investigating  a  new  system  of  transportation 
which,  under  the  competition  of  John  Ericsson,  better 
known  as  the  inventor  of  the  "Monitor,"  and  George  Ste- 
phenson,  of  locomotive  fame,  was  just  passing  through  its 
experimental  stage  on  the  Liverpool  and  Manchester  Rail- 
road in  England. 

1  ''Report  of  Mr.  Stewart  on  the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal." 
Washington,  1826. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

THE  CONVENTION  OF  1826  AND  THE  REPORT 
OF  MESSRS.  GEDDES  AND  ROBERTS. 

The  report  of  the  United  States  engineers  was  not  ready 
for  publication  in  detail  till  October,  1826.  Whatever  may 
be  said  of  the  failure  of  the  project,  the  canal  as  constructed 
on  paper  was  a  marvel  of  ingenuity  and  scientific  skill. 
Scarcely  a  detail  in  the  entire  work  from  Washington  to 
Pittsburg  was  omitted.  Every  item  of  cost  was  included 
by  name  even  to  the  fraction  of  a  cent.1 

The  water-way  of  this  famous  report  lay  on  the  north 
bank  of  the  Potomac  from  Georgetown  to  Cumberland, 
every  foot  of  the  canal  having  been  surveyed  and  definitely 
located.  From  Cumberland  it  proceeded  by  way  of  Will's 
Creek  to  the  mouth  of  Bowman's  Run.2  It  then  crossed 
the  highest  ridge  of  the  Alleghanies  by  a  tunnel  and  de- 
scended in  succession  the  valley  of  Casselman's  River,  the 
Youghiogheny  and  the  Monongahela,  terminating  at  Pitts- 
burg.3  The  total  estimate  was  something  over  twenty-two 
million  dollars.4 

1  It  is  an  interesting  coincidence  rather  than  a  logical  result  that 
the  part  of  the  canal  afterwards  constructed  from  Georgetown  to 
Cumberland  cost*  almost  to  the  dollar  the  sum  named  by  the  United 
States  engineers  in  this  report. 

2  It  will  be  observed  that  the  route  of  the  canal  westward  from 
Cumberland  was  changed  from  the  Youghiogheny  route  of  the  pre- 
liminary report  to  the   Casselman's   River   Route   in   the  complete 
report;  also  Cumberland  and  not  the  Coal  Banks  is  to  be  the  ter- 
minus of  the  Eastern  section. 

3  "Report  of  the  United  States  Board  of  Internal  Improvement," 
October  26,  1826.     Executive  Document  No.  10,  22. 

*  Summary  of  the  report  is  as  follows : 


Miles. 

Yards. 

Lockage  ft. 

No.  Locks. 

Estimated  Cost. 

Eastern  Section, 

185 

1078 

578 

74 

$8,177,081.05 

Middle 

70 

IOIO 

1961 

246 

10,028,122.86 

Western     " 

85 

348 

619 

78 

4,170,223.78 

Totals, 

340 

2436 

3158 

398 

$22,375,427.69 

6 

81 

82  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal.  [506 

Meanwhile  the  Central  Committee  and  the  commissioners 
to  open  books  for  subscriptions  to  the  stock  of  the  company 
had  united  in  calling  another  meeting  of  the  Chesapeake 
and  Ohio  Canal  Convention.  In  pursuance  to  this  call  the 
delegates  reassembled  in  Washington  December  6-9,  1826. 
The  chief  business  of  the  Convention  was  the  consideration 
of  the  final  report  of  the  United  States  engineers  with  a 
view  to  reduce  their  estimate  of  cost  to  a  practicable  figure. 
The  Convention  proved  to  its  own  satisfaction  that,  when  the 
errors  of  the  United  States  engineers  were  corrected  as  to 
the  actual  cost  of  labor  and  materials,  the  Georgetown- 
Cumberland  section  of  the  canal  could  be  constructed  for 
less  than  five  millions  of  dollars,  without  changing  the  great 
width  and  durability  of  the  canal  recommended  by  the 
report. 

If  the  friends  of  the  enterprise  had  accepted  this  revision 
as  final  the  work  might  have  been  commenced  at  least  as 
early  as  the  spring  of  1827  with  still  a  possibility  of  success. 
Instead  of  that,  however,  it  was  decided  that  an  entirely 
new  survey  and  estimate,  at  least  of  the  Georgetown-Cum- 
berland section,  must  be  made.  In  March,  therefore,  upon 
the  request  of  some  twenty  or  more  members  of  Congress, 
President  Adams  appointed  Mr.  James  Geddes  and  Mr. 
Nathan  S.  Roberts,  of  the  topographical  engineers,  to  survey 
again  the  entire  route  from  Georgetown  to  Cumberland,  and 
to  revise  the  estimate  of  the  Board  of  Internal  Improvement 
on  the  basis  of  actual  wages  and  current  prices  for  mate- 
rials.1 


1  Just  before  the  Convention  of  1826,  Mr.  Lacock,  a  United  States 
Senator,  and  a  practical  contractor  as  well,  in  answer  to  an  inquiry 
from  Mr.  Stewart  wrote:  "My  project  would  be  this:  Make  a  lock 
and  canal  navigation  from  Washington  City  to  Cumberland;  take  the 
National  Road  as  your  portage  road  until  you  come  to  the  Little 
Crossings,  twenty-two  miles  from  that  point;  make  canal  and  lock 
navigation  to  Pittsburg.  *  *  *  Of  this  I  am  positive,  that  this 
improvement  could  be  made  for  less  than  six  millions  of  dollars,  and 
that  in  a  very  short  time  you  would  have  as  much  freight  upon  your 


507]  The  Convention  of  1826.  83 

This  revision  was  accomplished  during  the  season  of  1827 
and  the  report  of  Messrs.  Geddes  and  Roberts  was  trans- 
mitted to  Congress  on  the  tenth  of  March,  I828.1  Accord- 
ing to  the  revised  estimate  in  this  report  the  eastern  section 
was  to  cost  $4,479,346.93.  The  project  had  been  rescued 
from  the  realms  of  imagination  and  there  would  be  a  Chesa- 
peake and  Ohio  Canal !  It  was  a  gala  day  for  the  friends 
of  the  enterprise  and  enthusiasm  rose  to  a  high  pitch. 

canal  as  could  be  passed  through  one  set  of  locks,  *  *  * 
I  am  very  willing  to  undertake  the  Eastern  section  at  my  old  bid, 
two  and  a  half  millions.  *  *  *  There  is  nothing  wanting  but  to 
give  up  everything  that  is  enormously  expensive  in  the  project,  and 
adopt  what  is  within  the  means  at  your  command."  See  "Proceed- 
ings, etc.,  of  the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal  Convention,"  1823  and 
1826,  105. 

The  Eastern  section  afterwards  cost  the  state  of  Maryland  alone 
$11,279,836.94.  See  "Report  to  the  Stockholders  on  the  Completion 
of  the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal  to  Cumberland,"  154.  Here  is 
certainly  food  for  reflection. 

1  State  Papers,  V.,  Doc.  192,  2Oth  Congress,  ist  Session. 


CHAPTER  IX. 

< 

THE  CHESAPEAKE  AND  OHIO  CANAL  AS  A 
NATIONAL  ENTERPRISE.1 

After  long  waiting  and  many  disappointments  the  com- 
missioners who  had  been  appointed  by  the  President  of  the 
United  States  and  the  Governors  of  Maryland  and  Virginia 
to  open  books  for  the  subscriptions  of  stock,  finally  made 
their  announcement,  August  20,  1827.  In  accordance  with 
the  notice  then  given  subscription  books  were  opened,  Oc- 
tober i,  1827.  In  less  than  a  month  and  a  half  there  had 
been  subscribed,  independently  of  the  debts  of  the  Potomac 
Company,  the  sum  of  one  million  five  hundred  thousand 
dollars.2  This  sum  was  sufficient,  under  the  provisions  of 
the  charter,  to  permit  the  organization  of  the  proposed 
company.  But  Congress  had  not  yet*  acted.  For  several 
years  past  everything  had  waited  upon  the  action  of  the 
Federal  Government,  and  now,  on  the  point  of  realization  of 
hopes  so  long  deferred,  came  the  fatal  delay,  the  final  waiting 
for  the  support  of  Congress,  which  assured  the  defeat  of  the 
whole  great  enterprise. 

Had  the  company  been  organized  in  November,  1827,  and 
actual  work  pushed  from  the  earliest  spring  of  1828,  there 
was  unquestionably  a  chance  of  reaching  Cumberland  before 
the  accumulated  enthusiasm  of  years  had  become  entirely 
exhausted.  But  the  Federal  Government  had  taken  up 
internal  improvement  and  the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal 
project  was  to  be  made  the  irrefutable  proof  of  the  folly  of 
such  a  course. 

1  See  Chapter  VI,  note  i. 

2  "Maryland  Court  of  Appeals  Reports,"  4  Gill  and  Johnson,  57. 

85 


86  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal.  [510 

At  length,  May  24,  1828,  the  action  of  Congress  direct- 
ing the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  subscribe  for  ten  thous- 
and shares  of  the  stock  of  the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal 
Company,  was  approved.1  The  act  directs  the  subscription 
to  be  paid  out  of  the  dividends  accruing  to  the  United  States 
on  account  of  the  stock  of  the  United  States  Bank.  The 
privilege  of  voting  the  stock  of  the  United  States  was  con- 
ferred upon  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

On  the  same  day  an  act  was  approved  giving  the  sanc- 
tion of  Congress  to  any  subscriptions  which  had  been  made, 
or  might  be  made,  to  the  stock  of  the  proposed  company  by 
the  cities  of  Washington,  Georgetown  and  Alexandria.2 

Washington  had  already  subscribed  ten  thousand  shares 
and  soon  Georgetown  and  Alexandria  each  subscribed 
twenty-five  hundred  shares.  The  financial  support  which 
the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal  Company  received  from  the 
Federal  Government  must,  therefore,  be  reckoned  not  at  one 
million  dollars  but  at  two  and  a  half  millions.  What 
grounds  had  Congress  for  expecting  that  towns  such  as 
those  of  the  District  were  in  1828  could  hope  to  meet  even 
the  interest  on  such  vast  sums?  Compare,  for  instance,  the 
action  of  Shepherdstown,  West  Virginia,  with  that  of  the 
District  cities.  This  thriving  little  town,  wide  awake  to  the 
interests  of  commerce,  and  acting  entirely  upon  its  own  re- 
sponsibility, subscribed  twenty  shares. 

The  District  cities,  it  is  true,  looked  for  rapid  growth 
under  the  impulse  which  the  proposed  improvement  was 
expected  to  give  to  trade.  Perhaps,  also,  the  smallest  of 
these  cities  was  financially  stronger  than  Shepherdstown, 
but  it  cannot  be  supposed  that  either  Georgetown  or  Alex- 
andria was  one  hundred  and  twenty-five  times  stronger. 

However  that  may  be,  the  fact  remains  that  the  loan 
which  the  District  cities  and  Alexandria  negotiated  in  Hol- 
land to  meet  their  subscriptions,  was  finally  liquidated  by  the 

1  "Debates  of  Congress,"  vol.  1827-8,  Appendix,  xxvii. 

2  Ibid.,  xxvii,  xxviii. 


511]  The  Canal  as  a  National  Enterprise.  87 

Federal  Government,  though  not  till  1837.  If  this  should 
leave  any  doubt  as  to  the  national  character  of  the  enter- 
prise, that  doubt  ought  to  be  dispelled  by  recalling  the  atti- 
tude of  the  Federal  Government  toward  the  project  from  its 
very  inception.  So  important  is  this  point  that  it  seems 
worth  while  to  repeat  here  in  briefest  outline,  the  previous 
development  of  the  project. 

The  practicability  of  connecting  the  waters  of  the  Poto- 
mac with  those  of  the  Ohio  had  been  first  suggested  in 
I82O,1  in  a  report  of  the  chief  engineer  of  the  Board  of  Pub- 
lic Works  of  Virginia.  From  that  time  petitions  were  fre- 
quently sent  to  Congress  praying  for  aid  in  clearing  the 
channel  of  the  Potomac  for  navigation.  On  the  third  of 
May,  1822,  the  Committee  on  the  District  of  Columbia  made 
a  favorable  report  on  the  numerous  petitions  which  had 
been  received,  and  called  the  attention  of  Congress  to  the 
practicability  of  connecting  the  seat  of  government  with 
the  Western  country  by  means  of  a  navigable  canal.  This 
report  may,  in  a  certain  sense,  be  regarded  as  the  origin  of 
the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal  project.  It  is  true  that  the 
House  Committee  on  Roads  and  Canals  had  made  a  report 
in  January,  1822,  urging  the  Federal  Government  to  take 
up  the  matter  of  internal  improvement.  Moreover,  the 
report  of  the  Committee  on  the  District  of  Columbia  was 
itself  one  of  the  results  of  a  still  earlier  report  of  the  chief 
engineer  of  the  Board  of  Public  Works  of  Virginia,  while 
this  last  in  turn  had  been  brought  about  by  the  failure  of 
the  Potomac  Company.  But  it  may  also  be  correctly  said 
that  none  of  these  earlier  reports  had  clearly  in  view  what 
was  later  undertaken  by  the  Federal  Government  as  the 
Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  report  of  May  3,  1822,  points 
unmistakably  to  the  canal  project  as  finally  adopted,  and  at 
the  same  time  led  directly  to  the  calling  of  the  Convention 

1  "First  Annual  Report  of  the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal  Com- 
pany," Appendix,  xxiii. 


88  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal.  [512 

of  I823.1  By  that  Convention  the  President  of  the  United 
States  was  interested,  and  at  his  suggestion  the  survey  act 
of  April  30,  1824,  was  passed.  With  the  passage  of  that  act 
the  Federal  Government  may  be  fairly  said  to  have  com- 
mitted itself  to  the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal  project. 
From  that  time  the  action  of  the  United  States  determined 
the  fortunes  of  the  enterprise.  For  example,  the  committee 
which  had  been  appointed  by  the  Convention  of  1823  to 
interest  the  legislature  of  Ohio,  was  at  once  directed  to  post- 
pone action  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  entire  route  was  to 
be  surveyed  by  United  States  engineers.2  More  than  that, 
the  work  had  been  so  well  managed  by  the  Central  Com- 
mittee that  subscriptions  to  the  stock  of  the  company  might 
have  been  solicited  a  year  and  a  half  earlier  than  the  books 
were  finally  opened,  but  nothing  could  be  intelligently  done 
till  the  estimates  of  the  United  States  Board  of  Internal  Im- 
provement could  be  obtained.3  Another  year  was  lost  in 
the  revision  of  these  estimates,  so  that  it  was  not  till  May  4, 
1828,  that  the  action  of  Congress  opened  the  way  for  the 
legal  organization  of  the  company.  Notice  was  promptly 
given  and  on  the  twentieth  of  June,  1828,  the  stockholders 
met  to  elect  a  president  and  six  directors.  Mr.  Charles  Fen- 
ton  Mercer,4  of  Virginia,  was  chosen  president. 

Most  elaborate  arrangements  were  made  for  the  ceremony 
of  breaking  ground  for  the  first  great  work  of  national  im- 
provement. The  spot  chosen  was  near  a  powder  magazine 

1  "First  Annual  Report  of  the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal  Com- 
pany," Appendix,  xxiii. 

2  "Proceedings  of  the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal  Convention,"  38. 

3  20th  Congress  ist  Session,  February  n,   1828,  Report  No.   141, 

50-59- 

4  Mr.  Mercer  had  been  the  moving  spirit  in  the  Leesburg  meeting, 
the  first  public  meeting  held  in  the  interest  of  the  canal  project. 
From  that  time  forward  few  if  any  had  labored  so  persistently  or  so 
effectively  as  he.     His  presidency  continued  for  five  years,  lacking 
fifteen  days.     For  the  period  of  Federal  interest  and  encouragement, 
about  ten  years,  Mr.  Mercer  was  the  soul  of  the  project. 


513]  The  Canal  as  a  National  Enterprise.  89 

at  the  head  of  the  Little  Falls,1  about  five  miles  west  of 
Georgetown,  and  accessible  by  boats  up  the  Potomac. 

Among  those  invited  to  attend  the  ceremonies  on  the 
Fourth  of  July,  1828,  were  the  President  of  the  United 
States,  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  the  Secretary  of  War, 
the  Secretary  of  the  Navy,  the  Postmaster  General,  the  Min- 
ister of  Great  Britain  to  the  United  States,  the  Russian  Min- 
ister and  Secretary  of  Legation,  the  Minister  of  the  Nether- 
lands, the  Charge  d'Affaire  of  Sweden,  the  Brazilian  Secre- 
tary of  Legation  and  the  Vice-Consul  General  of  France, 
comprising  all  the  representatives  of  foreign  powers  at  that 
moment  in  Washington. 

The  morning  appointed  for  the  exercises  broke  clear  and 
beautiful.  The  procession  formed  at  eight  o'clock  near 
Bridge  street,  whence  the  line  of  march  led  to  High  street, 
accompanied  by  the  music  of  the  Marine  Band.  Once 
aboard  the  Potomac  River  boats,  the  short  voyage  to  the 
Little  Falls  was  made  without  important  incident. 

A  great  concourse  of  people  had  gathered  to  witness  the 
doings  of  that  day,  many  even  climbing  into  the  neighboring 
trees  in  order  to  command  a  better  view.  When  the  spot 
where  the  first  spadeful  of  earth  was  to  be  taken  up  had  been 
selected,  and  a  little  space  cleared  of  the  crowd,  President 
Adams  stepped  forward  and  delivered  an  oration  appropriate 
to  the  occasion.  Among  other  things,  he  said,  "I  regard 
this  event  the  most  fortunate  incident  in  my  life."  Then, 
taking  from  Mr.  Mercer,  president  of  the  company,  the 
spade  which  had  been  provided,  the  President  struck  it 
vigorously  into  the  ground.  The  spade  caught  on  a  root 
and  refused  to  bring  up  earth,  whereupon  the  last  of  the 
dignified,  old-school  Presidents,  threw  off  his  coat,  and 
amidst  the  applause  of  the  assembled  thousands,  with  music 
by  the  band  thrown  in,  proceeded  with  that  determination 
which,  he  declared,  should  characterize  the  efforts  of  the 


1  "MS.  Proceedings  of  the  President  and  Directors  of  the  Chesa- 
peake and  Ohio  Canal  Company,"  July  i,  1828. 


90  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal.  [514 

company,  to  begin  the  excavation  of  the  eastern  section  of 
the  canal.  The  work  was  completed  a  little  more  than 
twenty-two  years  later. 

The  return  down  the  Potomac  was  made  in  the  midst  of 
general  rejoicing  and  goodfellowship.  At  the  collation 
which  was  served  on  board  boat,  the  President  of  the  United 
States  proposed  the  following  toast :  "To  the  Canal :  Per- 
severance." The  toast  proposed  by  the  president  of  the 
company  was,  "The  Constitution  of  the  United  States." 
The  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  proposed :  "The  Chesapeake 
and  Ohio  Canal."1  Thus,  under  the  immediate  auspices  of 
the  Federal  Government,  and  with  high  hopes,  was  begun 
the  historic  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal. 

The  company's  charter  required  one  hundred  miles  of  the 
canal  to  be  opened  for  navigation  within  three  years  from 
the  time  work  was  commenced.  On  that  propitious  Fourth 
of  July  there  were  good  reasons  for  expecting  the  entire 
eastern  section  of  the  canal  to  be  completed  before  the  end 
of  that  time. 

Contracts  were  soon  closed  for  forty-three  miles  of  the 
canal,  but  the  difficulty  of  getting  laborers  was  so  great  that 
arrangements  had  to  be  made  to  import  them  from  Europe. 
"Meat  three  times  a  day,  a  plenty  of  bread  and  vegetable, 
with  a  reasonable  allowance  of  liquor  and  eight,  ten  or 
twelve  dollars  a  month  for  wages  would,  we  have  supposed, 
prove  a  powerful  attraction  to  those  who,  narrowed  down  in 
the  circle  of  their  enjoyments,  have  at  this  moment  a  year 
of  scarcity  presented  to  them,"2  writes  Mr.  Mercer  to  the 
United  States  Consul  at  Liverpool.  At  the  same  time  half  a 
dozen  copies  of  a  suitable  advertisement  were  sent  to  be 
published  in  Dublin,  Cork  and  Belfast.  Notices  were  also 
sent  to  Holland.3 


1  For  full   description  of  the  ceremonies  in  connection  with  the 
breaking  of  ground,  see  Niles'  Register,  XXXIV,  325-8. 

2  MS.  Letter  Book,  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal  Company,  1828- 
1832,  39- 

3  Ibid.,  41. 


515]  The  Canal  as  a  National  Enterprise.  91 

Plans,  too,  were  already  on  foot  for  opening  books  of 
subscription  to  the  stock  of  the  company  in  Great  Britain 
and  on  the  continent.1 

Before  March,  1829,  the  whole  forty-eight  miles  of  canal 
between  Georgetown  and  Point  of  Rocks  had  been  let  to 
contractors  and  before  the  first  of  May,  1829,  more  or  less 
work  had  been  done  on  all  the  five  residencies  into  which 
that  section  had  been  subdivided.2  The  cost  of  the  work 
up  to  that  date  had  amounted  to  $131,168.94.  From  the 
first  of  May  to  the  first  of  August,  1829,  further  work  was 
done  to  the  amount  of  $164,569.96,  making  a  total  of  $295,- 
738.90,  or  about  one-fourth  of  the  work  necessary  to  open 
that  section  of  the  canal  to  navigation.3 

The  advertisement  for  foreign  labor  had  meanwhile  met 
with  satisfactory  responses.  In  July  Mr.  Mercer  wrote  to 
Mr.  Maury  in  Liverpool  to  have  emigrants  embarked  in 
time  to  reach  America  in  September  or  October,  since  by 
that  time  "the  autumnal  fevers  in  the  Potomac  Valley,  when 
any  occur,  are  over,  and  there  are  still  three  months  for 
labor.''  4  In  order  to  further  expedite  matters,  Mr.  Henry 
B.  Richards  was  engaged  as  an  agent  of  the  company  and 
sent  to  Liverpool  to  deal  directly  with  any  who  were  willing 
to  emigrate. 

Before  October  the  foreigners  began  to  arrive,  and  for 
awhile  wages  fell  according  to  the  expectations  of  the  com- 
pany. But  on  the  whole  the  season  of  1829  had  proven  most 
unfavorable  to  the  enterprise.  Fevers  became  so  prevalent 
that  some  of  the  contractors  were  compelled  to  withdraw 
temporarily,5  and  it  was  late  in  the  autumn  before  the  vari- 
ous gangs  were  again  reported  in  good  condition.6 

1  MS.  Letter  Book,  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal  Company,  1828- 
1832,  40. 

2  MS.  Letter,  Mr.  Mercer,  March  7,  1829. 

3  "First  Annual  Report  of  the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal  Com- 
pany," Appendix,  table  between  xxii  and  xxiii. 

*  MS.  Letter,  Mr.  Mercer,  July  8,  1829. 

5  MS.  Letter,  Secretary  of  the  Company,  August  24,  1829. 

6  "Second  Annual  Report  of  the  Company,"  6. 


92  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal.  [516 

The  immigrants  were  brought  over  at  the  expense  of  the 
company  for  the  most  part,  a  sort  of  return  to  the  indenture 
system  of  early  Virginia,  since  the  laborers  were  compelled 
to  sign  a  strict  contract  before  leaving  Europe.  And  when 
the  laborers  arrived  on  the  ground  there  was  a  re-enactment 
of  the  scenes  which  had  so  irritated  Captain  John  Smith  at 
Jamestown  just  about  two  hundred  years  before.  The  new- 
comers were  often  idle  and  quarrelsome,  while  the  laws  of 
free  America  were  found  ill  adapted  to  such  conditions, — 
conditions,  it  should  be  remarked,  which  those  laws  were 
neither  intended  nor  expected  to  cover. 

Insubordination  and  general  disorder  became  common. 
The  contracts  which  the  laborers  had  been  compelled  to 
sign  could  not  be  enforced,  while  in  some  instances  the 
laborers  ran  away  and  were  brought  back  only  at  great 
expense,  if  indeed  they  could  be  captured  and  returned  at 
all.1  In  October  a  party  of  these  indentured  derelicts  was 
arrested  in  Baltimore,  but  a  mob  gathered  about  the  officers 
and  aided  the  captives  to  escape.2  Toward  the  end  of  Octo- 
ber the  "Shenandoah"  arrived  in  the  Potomac  bringing  "a 
hundred  and  seventy-six  more  of  the  plagues."  After  that 
the  importation  of  labor  was  ordered  to  be  stopped  until 
further  notice.3 

So  late  as  the  middle  of  October  physicians  were  regularly 
employed  by  the  company  to  attend  the  sick,  who  were  to 
be  formally  reported  to  the  "Superintendent  of  Imported 
Laborers"  as  soon  as  they  should  recover.  The  weather, 
however,  permitted  the  continuation  of  the  work  far  into 
the  winter,  and  on  the  twenty-eighth  of  November  there 
were  thirteen  hundred  and  sixty-six  men,  "besides 
the  usual  proportion  of  other  force,"  employed  on  the 
three  "Residencies"  into  which  the  distance  between 
Georgetown  and  Seneca  had  been  divided.  This  section  of 

1  ''Second  Annual  Report,"  June  7,  1830,  5,  6. 

2  MS.  Letter,  Secretary  of  the  Company,  October  26,  1829. 

3  Ibid. 


517]  The  Canal  as  a  National  Enterprise.  93 

the  canal  between  the  Little  Falls  and  Seneca  the  company 
expected  to  open  to  navigation  by  the  first  of  June,  I83O.1 

Before  the  work  closed  for  the  winter  the  expenditures 
had  reached  the  sum  of  $560,750.63,  or  nearly  half  of  the 
cost  of  the  canal  from  Georgetown  to  Point  of  Rocks.  But 
for  some  time  past  the  work  had  been  restricted  to  the  sec- 
tion below  Seneca  because  from  that  point  westward  there 
was  to  be  no  supply  of  water  till  Harper's  Ferry  should  be 
reached.2 

It  further  turned  out  that  the  section  below  Seneca  could 
not  be  opened  on  the  date  expected,  though  three-fourths 
of  all  the  work  between  Georgetown  and  Point  of  Rocks 
had  been  completed.  But  in  November,  1830,  the  section 
from  Seneca  to  the  old  locks  of  the  Potomac  Company  at 
Little  Falls  through  which  it  was  possible  to  reach  tide- 
water, was  opened  to  navigation.  The  distance  from 
Georgetown  to  Seneca  is  about  twenty  miles.  Early  in  the 
spring  of  1831  the  canal  was  opened  a  mile  below  Little 
Falls,  and  with  the  further  extension  of  a  mile  a  little  later, 
the  work  was  brought  in  sight  of  Georgetown.3 

With  the  practical  completion  of  these  twenty  miles  of  the 
canal  in  the  summer  of  1831,  another  phase  of  the  history 
of  this  ill-starred  enterprise  is  introduced.  The  force  in  the 
employment  of  the  company  had  already  been  greatly  re- 
duced more  than  a  year  before,  while  still  further  reductions 
had  just  taken  place,  with  a  prospect  of  bringing  the  work 
to  a  complete  stop,  pending  a  decision  in  the  controversy 
with  the  Baltimore  and  Ohio  Railroad  Company.4 

1  MS.  Letter,  Secretary  of  the  Company,  December  12,  1829. 

2  Ibid.,  December  14,  1829. 

3  Third  Annual  Report,"  5. 
*  Ibid.,  30. 


CHAPTER  X. 
CANAL  AGAINST  RAILROAD. 

From  a  small  settlement  on  the  banks  of  the  Patapsco  in 
1729,  Baltimore  had  become  in  1829  a  flourishing  com- 
mercial center.  The  largest  flour  market  in  America,  her 
trade  in  general  compared  favorably  with  that  of  Philadel- 
phia, and  had  even  kept  pace  fairly  well  with  that  of  New 
York.  As  the  western  country  began  to  claim  more  and 
more  the  attention  of  the  cities  on  the  coast  a  business  rivalry 
naturally  sprung  up  among  them,  especially  for  the  promis- 
ing trade  of  the  region  between  the  Ohio  and  the  Great 
Lakes.  It  had  been  noticed  as  early  as  Washington's  day 
that  the  traffic  from  that  area  must,  under  the  conditions 
which  existed  until  1803,  pass  by  way  of  the  Great  Lakes 
and  the  state  of  New  York,  or  by  way  of  the  Potomac  to 
the  Chesapeake  Bay. 

It  was  not  strange,  therefore,  that  as  early  as  the  begin- 
ning of  the  present  century  New  York,  Philadelphia  and 
Baltimore  were  each  pushing  one  or  more  independent 
enterprises  for  the  improvement  of  transportation  facilities 
to  the  West.1  Now  the  manifest  advantage  of  Baltimore  in 
the  race  lay  in  the  fact  that  her  distance  from  the  goal  was 
some  fifty  or  sixty  miles  less  than  that  of  Philadelphia,  and 
between  one  hundred  and  two  hundred  miles  less  than  that 
of  New  York.2  Such  a  difference  in  distance  has  not  been 
sufficient  under  the  transportation  systems  developed  in  the 
present  century  to  decide  which  should  be  the  metropolis, 
but  when  the  average  cost  of  transporting  a  bushel  of  wheat 

1  "Report  of  the   Secretary  of  the   Treasury  on  the   Subject  of 
Roads  and  Canals,"  Washington,  1808,  46-48. 

2  Ibid.,  23. 

95 


96  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal.  [520 

was  about  a  quarter  of  a  cent  a  mile,  a  small  difference  might 
well  have  determined  which  should  be  the  chief  seaport  for 
the  produce  of  the  interior.1 

But  there  was  another  thing  which  appeared  to  favor 
Baltimore  as  the  metropolis  of  the  future.  The  National 
Road  was  already  making  its  way  westward  from  Cumber- 
land, while  from  that  place  by  way  of  Frederick  to  Baltimore 
roads  were  soon  in  such  a  condition  as  to  offer  the  best 
transportation  by  land  then  known. 

Yet  by  the  middle  of  the  second  decade  of  this  century 
the  commercial  states  of  the  Union  had  become  saturated 
with  the  canal  idea,  and  Baltimore  was  not  fortunately  situ- 
ated for  canal  communication  with  the  West.  On  the  other 
hand  New  York,  before  1820,  was  pushing  the  Erie  Canal 
across  that  state  to  the  Great  Lakes,  while  Philadelphia  with 
a  sort  of  mongrel  sluice  and  river  navigation  was  reaching 
out  toward  Pittsburg  and  the  Ohio  valley.  If,  therefore, 
canals  were  to  furnish  the  transportation  of  the  future,  there 
was  little  promise  that  Baltimore  would  be  really  in  the  race 
at  all,  for  there  was  no  considerable  river  valley  connecting 
Baltimore  with  the  distant  interior.  It  is  true  that  the 
Potomac  was  only  forty  miles  distant  with  comparatively 
level  country  intervening,  but  Baltimore  very  correctly 
judged  that  a  canal  in  the  Potomac  Valley  would  do  much 
more  to  build  up  for  her  a  rival  on  the  lower  Potomac  than 
it  would  do  for  the  development  of  her  own  trade.  Hence, 
when  the  bill  for  incorporation  of  the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio 
Canal  had  first  come  before  the  General  Assembly  of  Mary- 
land the  state  refused  its  assent  on  the  ground  that  the 
charter  did  not  expressly  give  Baltimore  the  right  to  partici- 
pate in  the  advantages  of  the  canal  through  a  branch  canal 
to  terminate  in  that  city.  But  in  this  a  very  pardonable 
local  jealousy  had,  perhaps,  gone  rather  far,  for  there  ap- 
peared to  be  no  disposition  whatever  on  the  part  of  the  pro- 
moters of  the  canal  project  to  localize  its  advantages. 

1  "Annals  of  Congress,"  1810,  II,  1394. 


521]  Canal  Against  Railroad.  97 

The  people  of  western  Maryland,  however,  began  to  be 
interested  in  the  canal  because  it  would  furnish  them  direct 
and  cheap  transportation  for  their  produce.  Meetings  were 
held  in  the  interest  of  the  canal  with  a  desire  to  influence 
the  General  Assembly.  At  one  of  these  meetings  held  in 
Frederick  in  the  fall  of  1825  it  was  decided  to  hold  a  general 
convention  in  Baltimore.  By  that  time  the  Erie  Canal  had 
been  opened  in  New  York,  the  Federal  Government  was 
pushing  its  survey  of  the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  route,  and 
it  began  to  look  as  if  Maryland  must  get  into  line  pretty 
quickly  or  be  left  practically  without  communication  with 
the  West.  Under  such  conditions  internal  improvement 
naturally  became  a  political  issue.  There  was  a  sort  of  gen- 
eral rising  throughout  the  state.  Accordingly  when  the 
internal  improvement  convention  which  had  been  called  by 
the  Frederick  meeting  met  in  Baltimore  December  14,  1825, 
a  memorial  was  drawn  up  and  presented  to  the  General  As- 
sembly requesting  a  state  subscription  to  the  stock  of  the 
canal  company.1  The  privilege  of  a  branch  canal  to  Balti- 
more had  been  granted,  and  as  no  other  means  had  yet  ap- 
peared by  which  Baltimore  might  hope  to  participate  in  the 
Western  trade,  the  General  Assembly  was  urged  to  act  at 
once  while  the  co-operation  of  the  United  States  might  be 
secured.  What  the  General  Assembly  did  for  the  Chesa- 
peake and  Ohio  Canal  at  that  time  has  already  been  related. 
It  is  needful  to  recount  here  only  what  was  done  to  enable 
Baltimore  to  compete  for  the  Western  trade  on  equal  terms 
with  the  other  cities  of  the  coast. 

In  view  of  the  importance  which  internal  improvement 
had  assumed  for  Maryland  and  especially  for  Baltimore  the 
General  Assembly  passed  an  act  March  6,  1826,  for  the 
promotion  of  internal  improvement,  and  granted  a  charter 
to  the  "Maryland  Canal  Company."  2  This  company  was 
charged  with  the  making  of  a  canal  from  some  convenient 

1  Niles'  Register,  New  Series,  V,  164,  246,  328. 

2  "Laws  of  Maryland,"  December  Session,  1825,  chap.  180. 

7 


98  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal.  [522 

point  of  intersection  Math  the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal 
on  the  Potomac  to  Baltimore.1 

The  surveys  for  the  Maryland  Canal  were  prosecuted 
during  the  season  of  1826  under  the  efficient  management 
of  Dr.  William  Howard,  and  by  November  of  that  year  the 
work  had  been  pronounced  practicable  and  a  route  had  been 
selected.2  But  just  as  the  making  of  canals  was  about  to  be 
seriously  undertaken  in  the  south  there  came  from  England 
a  new  idea  in  transportation  destined  to  change  completely 
the  development,  not  only  of  the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal 
project,  but  of  the  economic  conditions  of  the  entire  world. 
Baltimore  was  the  first  American  city  to  seize  and  apply  the 
results  of  George  Stephenson's  experiments  with  steam. 

During  February,  1827,  several  meetings  in  the  interest 
of  internal  improvement  were  held  in  Baltimore,  and  the 
battle,  canal  against  railroad,  was  fought  over  again  and 
again  with  vehemence.3  To  speak  of  a  convention  of  pro- 
gressive business  men  called  to  discuss  the  relative  advan- 
tages of  canal  and  railroad  would  now  provoke  a  smile,  but 
it  should  be  recalled  that  in  1827  the  canal  was  an  estab- 
lished commercial  agent,  while  there  was  not  a  steam  rail- 
road in  all  America,  and  only  one  short  experimental  line 
in  all  the  world.  For  more  than  half  a  century  the  canal  had 
been  to  the  commerce  of  that  day  what  the  railroad  is  to  that 
of  the  present.  The  railroad  when  heavily  burdened  could 
not  insure  greater  speed  than  the  canal,  while  many  believed 
that  both  in  cost  of  construction  and  in  operation  the  rail- 
road would  be  totally  unable  to  compete  with  the  canal. 
Again  it  must  be  remembered  that  for  twenty  years  steam- 
boats had  been  a  decided  success,  and  it  was  but  natural 
to  think  of  steam  as  the  motive-power  for  canal  boats.4  If 

1  "Maryland  Reports,"  4  Gill  and  Johnson,  55. 

2  Niles'  Register,  XXXI,  169. 

3  See   "Proceedings   of  the    Convention   of   1827."     Also,    current 
issues  of  Niles'  Register. 

4  In  1830  the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal  Company  was  experi- 
menting with  steam  as  a  motive  power  for  canal  boats.     MS.  Letter 
of  the  Secretary,  February  8,  1830. 


523]  Canal  Against  Railroad.  99 

that  force  were  used  the  speed  of  the  canal  would  be  as 
great  as  that  of  the  railroad,  while  the  advantages  of  com- 
fort and  cheapness  would  be  all  on  the  side  of  the  canal.1 
Who  could  then  foresee  the  modern  Pullman  train  of  parlor, 
dining  and  sleeping  coaches  speeding  across  the  continent 
in  four  days  while  the  traveler  enjoys  most  of  the  comforts 
of  a  well-appointed  home  ?  Yet  Baltimore  seemed  to  foresee 
enough  of  this  to  make  her  decide  in  favor  of  the  railroad 
and  against  the  canal.  A  memorial  to  the  General  Assembly 
then  in  session  at  Annapolis  was  followed  almost  immedi- 
ately by  an  act  approved  February  27,  1827,  incorporating 
the  Baltimore  and  Ohio  Railroad  Company.  In  less  than 
two  months  all  of  the  stock  of  the  company  had  been  sub- 
scribed. On  the  twenty-third  of  April,  1827,  the  company 
organized  with  Mr.  Philip  E.  Thomas  as  President,  and  the 
preliminary  surveys  were  commenced  without  delay. 

The  route  selected  by  the  engineers  and  adopted  by  the 
stockholders  at  their  first  annual  meeting,  May,  1828,  pro- 
ceeded by  way  of  the  Patapsco  river  to  Point  of  Rocks,  and 
thence  along  the  north  shore  of  the  Potomac  river  to  Har- 
per's Ferry.  On  the  Fourth  of  July,  1828,  the  same  day 
that  the  President  of  the  United  States  broke  ground  at  the 
Little  Falls  for  the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal,  the  vener- 
able Charles  Carroll,  of  Carrollton,  the  only  survivor  of  the 
signers  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  broke  ground 
at  Baltimore  for  the  Baltimore  and  Ohio  Railroad.  Thus 
were  inaugurated  about  the  same  hour  and  scarcely  more 
than  forty  miles  apart  two  works  destined  by  their  situation 
to  decide  for  the  world  whether  the  transportation  of  the 
future  was  to  be  by  canal  or  by  railroad.  But  it  was  not  to  be 
expected  that  so  important  a  question  would  be  settled 
either  amicably  or  quickly.  A  curious  fate  had  brought 
into  direct  opposition,  not  only  two  distinct  systems  of 
transportation,  but  also  several  distinct  and  conflicting  inter- 
ests, both  public  and  private.  Under  such  conditions  it  was 
probably  impossible  from  the  first  to  settle  the  issue  without 
litigation. 

1  "Second  Annual  Report,"  8. 


CHAPTER  XL 
IN  THE  COURTS. 

On  the  tenth  of  June,  1828,  the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio 
Canal  Company  filed  in  the  Circuit  Court  for  Washington 
County,  sitting  as  a  court  of  chancery,  a  bill  of  complaint 
against  the  Baltimore  and  Ohio  Railroad  Company,  and 
prayed  an  injunction  to  estop  the  said  railroad  company 
from  locating  its  road  between  Point  of  Rocks  and  Harper's 
Ferry  on  land  to  which  the  canal  company  claimed  prior 
rights.1  At  several  points  in  the  disputed  section  there  was 
not  space  enough  between  the  cliffs  on  the  north  shore  and 
the  channel  of  the  Potomac  river  to  accommodate  both 
works.  All  these  places  the  canal  company  claimed  to  have 
pre-empted  by  numerous  surveys,  but  especially  by  the 
location  and  estimation  of  the  canal  by  the  United  States 
Board  of  Internal  Improvement  in  1826,  and  again  by  the 
survey,  location  and  estimation  of  Geddes  and  Roberts  in 


In  accordance,  therefore,  with  the  prayer  of  the  complain- 
ants the  court  issued  an  injunction  to  prevent  any  further 
condemnation  of  land  or  location  of  the  road  by  the  railroad 
company.  This  bill  the  company  did  not  answer,  though 
that  would  apparently  have  led  in  a  very  short  time  to  a 
settlement  of  the  dispute.  Instead  of  taking  this  simple 
way  to  get  a  decision  of  the  question  as  to  which  of  the 

1  For  a  copy  of  this  bill,  see  "Report  of  Albert  and  Kearney  on 
Examination  of  the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal  from  Washington 
City  to  Point  of  Rocks,"  Washington,  1831,  Appendix,  145. 

2  For  a  careful  and  accurate  statement  of  the  points  involved  in 
the  question  of  priority,  see  the  decision  of  the  Court  of  Appeals  of 
Maryland  by  Buchanan,  C.J.,  in  4  Gill  and  Johnson,  52,  et  seq. 

101 


102  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal.  [526 

enterprises  had  the  better  right  to  construct  its  work  in  the 
narrow  passes  of  the  Potomac  Valley,  the  railroad  company 
proceeded  to  file  three  separate  bills  of  complaint  against 
the  canal  company,  June  23,  24  and  25,  1828,  in  the 
Court  of  Chancery  at  Annapolis,  thus  causing  two  separate 
cases  about  the  same  question  to  depend  at  the  same  time 
in  two  quite  distinct  courts.1 

With  affairs  in  this  condition  and  after  considerable  cor- 
respondence, the  president  of  the  canal  company,  with  coun- 
sel, visited  Baltimore  in  November,  1828,  to  arrange  if 
possible  for  the  immediate  submission  of  the  question  at 
issue  to  the  Chancellor,  but  the  contending  companies 
could  reach  no  agreement  and  on  the  eighth  of  May,  1829, 
the  canal  company  answered  the  bills  in  the  Court  of 
Chancery.2  At  the  September  session  of  the  Court  the 
canal  company  filed  a  motion  to  dissolve  the  injunction  but 
the  relief  was  not  granted. 

On  the  eighteenth  of  January,  1830,  the  court  issued  a 
decree  for  a  new  survey  of  the  disputed  passes,  in  order  to 
see  if  the  works  might  be  constructed  jointly  and  thus  econ- 
omize space.3  Against  this  survey,  involving  as  it  did 
a  loss  of  time  ruinous  to  the  interests  of  the  canal,  the  com- 
pany protested  strongly  but  to  no  purpose.  Accordingly 
each  company  employed  skilled  engineers  and  the  joint  sur- 
vey began.  By  the  time  this  was  completed  the  case  was 
ready  for  trial  at  the  September  term  of  the  Court  of  Chan- 
cery. The  result  was  a  decree  of  perpetual  injunction 
against  the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal  Company.  The 
case  was  immediately  taken  to  the  Court  of  Appeals.  There 
the  decision  of  the  lower  court  was  reversed ;  the  injunction 
against  the  railroad  company  was  continued,  and  the  right 

1  "Second  Annual  Report,"  g. 

2  Gill  and  Johnson,  62.     See  this  answer  and  accompanying  exhib- 
its filed  in  the  Land  office  at  Annapolis,  Md. 

3  Correspondence  between  the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal  Com- 
pany and  the  Baltimore   and  Ohio  Railroad   Company.     Maryland 
Historical  Society,  copy,  27. 


527]  In  the  Courts.  103 

of  the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal  Company  to  the  disputed 
passes  fully  affirmed. 

It  thus  appears  that  the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal 
Company  having  overcome  the  greatest  difficulties  by  dint 
of  toil  and  patient  waiting  through  many  long  years,  was 
at  last  in  a  fair  way  to  a  speedy  realization  of  hopes  deferred, 
when  progress  beyond  the  Point  of  Rocks  was  suddenly 
cut  off  by  the  action  of  the  railroad  company  within  little 
more  than  a  month  after  ground  was  broken.  Four  years 
were  then  to  elapse  before  a  right  which  had  not  before 
seemed  questionable  could  be  legally  established  in  the  face 
of  the  bitterest  opposition.  By  1832  the  canal  should  have 
been  completed  to  Cumberland.  "We  shall  in  the  next 
year  reach  the  mouth  of  the  Shenandoah,  in  three  years 
from  the  stroke  which  the  President  first  struck  for  us, 
Cumberland,"  wrote  Mr.  Mercer  in  November,  I828.1  But 
no  such  thing  happened.  Instead  the  next  three  years  wit- 
nessed not  only  the  controversy  with  the  railroad  company, 
but  also  a  complete  change  of  center  of  gravity  in  the  financial 
support  for  the  canal  company.  Just  as  the  relative  advan- 
tages of  canal  and  railroad  had  been  debated  in  Baltimore  in 
1827,  so  the  same  question  was  discussed  in  Congress  early 
in  1830,  with  the  result  that  all  hope  of  further  support  from 
the  Federal  Government,  at  least  for  the  time  being,  had 
to  be  abandoned  by  the  canal  company.  It  is  true  that 
Congress  did  not  at  this  session  aid  either  of  the  contending 
companies.  It  was  rather  determined  to  wait  until  experi- 
ence should  determine  whether  canal  or  railroad  would  best 
supply  the  necessities  of  the  community.2 

Meanwhile  not  only  had  the  Federal  Administration 
changed,  but  also  the  party  controlling  the  popular  branch 
of  the  national  legislature.  The  "American  System"  had 
been  pushed  too  far.  With  Jackson's  election  had  come  a 

1  MS.  Letter,  November  18,  1828. 

*  Letter  of  Mr.  Mercer  to  Mr.  Andrew  Stewart,  of  Pittsburg, 
May  14,  1830. 


104  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal.  [528 

reaction.  Jackson  opposed  the  construction  of  internal 
improvements  by  the  Federal  Government,  and  since  the 
whole  project  had  been  founded  upon  federal  support  the 
withdrawal  of  that  support  caused  the  original  project  of 
the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal  to  collapse.1 

With  the  opposition  of  the  railroad  company  came  first 
delay,  then  disappointment  and  finally  almost  complete 
abandonment  of  the  work  till  1832. 2  By  that  time  enthusi- 
asm for  the  canal  had  somewhat  cooled,  improvements  in 
the  steam  engine  had  demonstrated  the  superiority  of  the 
railroad,  at  least  in  many  respects,  and  last,  but  not  least,  the 
canal  company  was  bankrupt. 

It  seems,  therefore,  pretty  evident  that  when  the  railroad 
company  in  1828  had  "deemed  it  expedient  for  both  com- 
panies to  reach  the  disputed  ground  and  to  regard  both 
works  as  mere  •experiments  until  time  should  disclose  their 
comparative  advantages,"  3  the  root  of  the  whole  matter 
was  reached.  It  was  indeed  far  less  a  question  of  title  to  a 
few  acres  of  land  on  the  north  bank  of  the  Potomac  than  it 
was  a  question  in  the  problem  of  nineteenth  century  trans- 
portation. Should  transportation  adopt  as  its  chief  agent 
for  the  future  the  canal  or  the  railroad?  The  Court  of 

1  "In  the  existing  temper  the  Committee  on  Roads  and  Canals, 
I   clearly   perceive    that    any    memorial    which   we   might   present 
would   be   unfavorably   regarded;    and   I    had  too  little   reason   to 
hope  a  more  favorable  result  from  the  House  while  the  present  de- 
lusion prevails  in  favor  of  the  railroad."     Letter  of  Mr.  Mercer  to 
Mr.  Andrew  Stewart,  of  Pittsburg,  May  14,  1830.     The  "delusion" 
still  prevails. 

2  Letter  of  the  president  of  the  company,  February  n,   1833.     It 
is  curious  that  the  state  which  had,  through  the  railroad  enterprise, 
dealt  the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal  project  its  death-blow,  should 
have  been  the  only  government  that  ever  ventured  again  to  touch 
the  corpse.     But  it  cannot  be  too  strongly  insisted  that  what  Mary- 
land resurrected  in  1832  was  not  the  original  project,  but  something 
that  the  originators  of  the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal  project  would 
scarcely  have  recognized. 

3  "Second  Annual  Report,"  8. 


529]  In  the  Courts.  105 

Appeals  answered  in  favor  of  the  canal,  but  that  higher 
court  of  great  natural  and  economic  forces  which  must  ever 
determine  the  direction  of  material  progress  has  answered 
in  favor  of  the  railroad. 

Nevertheless  the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal  survived 
and  the  history  of  that  survival  is  a  checkered  and  interest- 
ing tale. 


CHAPTER  XII. 
THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  EXISTENCE. 

When  in  the  spring  of  1832  the  canal  company  found 
itself  legally  free  to  prosecute  the  work  of  construction, 
another  difficulty  presented  itself.  Bankruptcy  had  super- 
vened and  before  work  could  be  resumed  financial  support 
would  have  to  be  obtained  from  some  quarter.  Everything 
possible  had  already  been  done  to  induce  the  Federal  Gov- 
ernment to  continue  the  support  which  alone  had  brought 
the  project  to  its  present  dimensions,  but  it  was  apparent 
that  all  hope  of  further  aid  from  that  quarter  must  be  aban- 
doned. 

One  glimmering  hope  remained — the  self-interest  of  the 
state  of  Maryland.  In  the  matter  of  subscription  to  stock 
Virginia  had  never  measured  up  to  the  reasonable  expecta- 
tions of  the  company,  but  Maryland  with  her  western  coun- 
ties to  develop  and  her  metropolis  to  foster  had  always 
manifested  a  lively  interest  in  the  subject  of  internal  im- 
provement. Therefore  it  was  quite  as  natural  as  necessary 
for  the  canal  company  to  appeal  to  the  General  Assembly 
of  Maryland  for  liberal  support  in  order  that  the  work 
might  be  completed  at  least  to  Cumberland.  Until  that 
much  should  be  accomplished  the  six  hundred  thousand 
dollars  already  invested  by  the  state  in  the  canal  could  pro- 
duce no  income  whatever. 

Maryland  naturally  hesitated  to  undertake  single-handed 
the  completion  of  the  canal  even  to  Cumberland,  since  that 
would  mean  the  making  of  about  one  hundred  and  forty 
miles  of  canal  on  a  scale  devised  by  the  Federal  Government 
to  meet  national  requirements  and  expecting  the  support  of 
the  national  treasury.  When,  however,  it  became  evident 

107 


108  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal.  [532 

that  the  Federal  Government  had  definitely  and  finally  de- 
serted the  work,  Maryland  began  to  look  about  for  means 
to  make  her  investment  productive.  With  things  in  this 
situation  the  General  Assembly  of  Maryland  in  the  year  I8341 
passed  an  act  authorizing  a  loan  of  two  million  dollars  to  the 
Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal  Company.2 

Let  it  not  be  said  that  there  were  no  financial  returns. 
From  August  15,  1828,  to  June  i,  1831,  the  income  from 
all  sources  on  account  of  the  canal  amounted  to  $52,- 
048.95.  Repairs  and  collections  had  cost  in  the  same  period 
$15,138.85.  This  result  would  seem  remarkable  in  view  of 
the  fact  that  no  part  of  the  canal  was  open  to  navigation  till 
November,  1830,  were  it  not  remembered  that  tolls  never 
ceased  to  be  collected  at  the  locks  of  the  Potomac  Company 
around  the  Great  and  the  Little  Falls.  The  canal  company 
succeeded  at  the  same  time  to  the  rights  and  the  revenues 
of  the  older  organization.  Not  only  this  but  the  twenty 
miles  of  navigation  opened  for  a  short  time  in  the  fall  of  1830 
and  reopened  in  the  spring  of  1831  proved  eminently  satis- 
factory to  the  company,  as  may  be  gathered  from  the  follow- 
ing quotation : 

"The  spectacle  which  has  recently  been  presented  of  a 
single  horse  of  moderate  size  and  strength  drawing  five  hun- 
dred and  twelve  barrels  of  flour  in  a  heavy  boat  with  ap- 
parent ease  a  distance  of  twenty-two  miles  through  twenty- 
three  locks  in  a  single  day,  is  calculated  of  itself  to  counter- 
vail the  numerous  theories  of  the  utility  of  railroads."  3 

It  soon  became  apparent  to  all  that  two  million  dollars 
would  be  totally  inadequate  to  the  completion  of  the  canal 
to  Cumberland  and  state  support  was  again  sought.  "Wea- 

1  "Laws  of  Maryland,"  1834,  chap.  241. 

2  This  act  was  procured  through  the  influence  of  an  internal  im- 
provement convention  held   in  Baltimore  in  December,    1834.     See 
"Eighth  Annual  Report,"  3.     The  estimate  of  this  convention's  me- 
morial was  that  $2,000,000  would  be  sufficient  to  complete  the  canal 
to  Cumberland. 

3  "Third  Annual  Report,"  32,  33. 


533]  Struggle  for  Existence.  109 

ried  with  fruitless  efforts  to  obtain  the  necessary  funds  from 
the  United  States  and  Virginia,  finding  the  interest  which 
Ohio  and  Pennsylvania  formerly  professed  diverted  to  other 
and  rival  works,  the  only  reliance  of  the  company  for 
prompt  and  efficient  aid  was  upon  the  legislature  of  Mary- 
land." x  That  aid  was  given  by  Maryland  in  the  famous 
eight  million  dollar  bill  passed  June  4,  1836.  In  accordance 
with  the  provisions  of  this  act  the  canal  company  received 
three  million  dollars. 

In  spite  of  all  this  the  summer  of  1837  found  the  canal 
completed  only  to  Dam  No.  5,  seven  miles  above  Williams- 
port,  and  one  hundred  and  seven  miles  from  Georgetown. 
The  next  twenty-seven  miles  of  the  canal  to  Dam  No.  6, 
Great  Cacapon,  were  in  progress,  and  the  last  fifty  miles 
thence  to  Cumberland  were  under  contract.2  But  the  canal 
company's  share  of  the  eight  million  loan  was  issued  in  six 
per  cent,  bonds  which  proved  unsalable  in  England  and  had 
to  be  converted  by  another  legislature  into  five  per  cent, 
bonds.  Add  to  this  the  difficulties  caused  by  the  suspension 
of  specie  payments  and  the  panic  of  1837,  and  there  need  be 
no  surprise  that  the  canal  company  was  again  begging  the 
General  Assembly  for  a  further  subscription  to  its  stock. 
Such  a  subscription  the  session  of  1838 3  granted  to  the 
amount  of  one  million  three  hundred  and  seventy-five  thou- 
sand dollars. 

Among  other  difficulties  with  which  the  company  had  to 
reckon  were  the  riots  which  occasionally  broke  out  among 
the  laborers  on  the  canal.  A  fight  between  a  company  of 
Irishmen  engaged  on  the  line  of  the  canal  at  Oldtown  and  a 
body  of  their  countrymen  at  work  on  the  tunnel  near  by, 
resulted  in  the  destruction  of  considerable  private  property 
and  was  only  quelled  by  the  intervention  of  military  force. 
The  ring  leaders  were  arrested  and  taken  to  Cumberland 

1  "Special  Committee  Report,"  July  18,  1836,  4. 

2  "Ninth  Annual  Report,"  3.  3  Chap.  396. 


110  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal.  [534 

for  trial  while  others  less  guilty  were  dismissed  from  the 
works.1 

The  eleventh  annual  report  of  June  3,  1839,  remarks  with 
evident  satisfaction  that  the  receipts  of  tolls  for  the  last 
twelve  months  had  amounted  to  $42,835.80,  an  increase 
of  over  twelve  thousand  dollars.  It  was  then  expected  that 
the  canal  would  be  completed  to  Cumberland  in  two  years,2 
but  at  the  end  of  that  time  the  water-way  reached  no  further 
than  Dam  No.  6,  fifty  miles  below  Cumberland. 

By  1841  the  company  was  again  in  need  of  aid  and  Mary- 
land was  herself  practically  bankrupt.  Thus  matters  stood 
till  1844,  the  company's  receipts  being  meanwhile  less  than 
its  expenses.  On  the  tenth  of  March  was  passed  the  famous 
"Act  of  1844"  waiving  Maryland's  several  liens  on  the  pro- 
perty and  revenues  of  the  canal  and  giving  the  company 
power  to  issue  preferred  bonds  to  the  amount  of  one  million 
seven  hundred  thousand  dollars.  As  security  for  these 
bonds  the  holders  received  from  the  canal  company  a  mort- 
gage dated  on  the  fifth  of  June,  1848.  It  was  with  the 
money  raised  on  these  bonds  that  the  canal  was  at  last  com- 
pleted to  Cumberland,  October,  i85O.3 

1  "Tenth  Annual  Report,"  12. 

2  "Eleventh  Annual  Report,"  7. 

3  For  a  less  summary  review  of  the  period  treated  in  this  chapter, 
see  "Twenty-second  Annual  Report,"  which  is  accompanied  by  an 
outline  history. 


CONCLUSION. 

When  the  canal  was  completed  to  Cumberland  its  great 
rival,  the  Baltimore  and  Ohio  Railroad,  was  reaching  out 
almost  to  the  Ohio  river  at  Wheeling.  Thus  the  trade  from 
the  Coal  Banks  which  had  been  the  chief  hope  of  the  canal 
company,  had  already  been  more  conveniently  provided  for 
by  the  railroad,  because  the  coal  was  some  twenty  or  thirty 
miles  west  of  Cumberland  and  the  terminus  of  the  canal, 
while  the  railroad  fairly  penetrated  the  coal  region.  After 
a  short  experience  the  railroad  found  it  possible  to  fix  the 
rates  so  as  to  draw  the  coal  to  itself  in  such  quantities  that 
the  revenue  of  the  canal  was  little  above  its  running  ex- 
penses. No  interest  was  paid  on  the  "bonds  of  1844"  after 
July,  I864.1 

Nevertheless  interest  in  the  "Old  Ditch,"  as  the  canal 
came  to  be  called,  never  completely  died  out,  and  about 
1870  occurred  a  most  curious  instance  of  history  repeating 
itself.  The  Federal  Government  revived  the  original  pro- 
ject of  1823-24.  The  matter  was  put  again  in  the  hands  of 
the  United  States  Board  of  Internal  Improvement  for  new 
surveys  with  a  view  to  extending  the  canal  westward  from 
Cumberland  to  Pittsburgh  But  the  whole  matter  ended 
where  it  began,  in  minutely  detailed  estimates  of  cost  and 
voluminous  reports. 

In  1877  the  works  of  the  canal  were  almost  ruined  by  a 
freshet.  The  company  found  itself  unable  to  repair  the 
damages.  The  General  Assembly,  therefore,  once  more 
came  to  the  rescue.  At  the  session  of  1878  an  act  was 


1  "73  Maryland  Reports,"  582. 

z  See  "Annual  Report  upon  the  Improvement  of  the  Ohio,"  etc. 
Washington,  1874.     Also  same  for  1876. 

Ill 


112  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal.  [536 

passed  again  waiving  the  state's  liens  and  authorizing  the 
company  to  issue  preferred  bonds  to  the  amount  of  five 
hundred  thousand  dollars.  The  necessary  repairs  were 
effected,  but  still  the  canal  could  scarcely  be  made  to  pay 
operating  expenses.  Thus  matters  stood  when  the  freshet 
of  1889  completely  wrecked  the  canal. 

The  company  could  do  nothing  to  put  the  canal  in  repair, 
and  the  trustees  of  the  bondholders  under  the  act  of  1844, 
therefore,  filed  in  the  Circuit  Court  for  Washington  County, 
sitting  as  a  Court  of  Equity,  a  bill  of  complaint  against  the 
canal  company  and  asked  that  receivers  be  appointed  to 
operate  the  canal,  December  31,  iSSg.1 

January  15,  1890,  the  trustees  under  the  act  of  1878  also 
filed  a  bill  against  the  canal  company  asking  that  receivers 
be  appointed  and  that  the  canal  be  sold. 

January  16,  1890,  the  trustees  of  the  bondholders  under 
the  act  of  1844  filed  a  second  bill,  not  only  against  the  canal 
company,  but  also  against  the  trustees  under  the  act  of 
1878. 

January  29,  1890,  the  trustees  under  the  act  of  1878  filed 
their  answer  to  this  bill.  January  31,  1890,  the  Chesapeake 
and  Ohio  Canal  Company  filed  its  answer  to  the  same  bill. 
On  the  same  day  the  state  of  Maryland  was  admitted  as  a 
party  defendant. 

As  a  result  of  all  these  proceedings  the  court  issued  a 
decree  March  3,  1890,  appointing  Robert  Bridges,  Richard 
Johnson  and  Joseph  D.  Baker  receivers  for  the  purpose  of 
ascertaining  by  actual  examination  and  estimate  the  condi- 
tion of  the  canal,  cost  of  repair,  and  prospects  of  profitable 
operation  if  repaired.  The  receivers  reported  the  condition 
of  the  work  in  detail  and  were  of  opinion  that  profitable 
operation  would  be  out  of  the  question. 

The  court  then  decided  to  issue  a  decree  for  the  sale  of 
the  canal,  but  before  this  actually  came  to  pass  the  trustees 


1  For  fuller  details  of  these  legal  proceedings,  see  "73  Maryland 
Reports,"  488-516,  and  567-618. 


537]  Conclusion.  113 

under  the  act  of  1844  asked  to  be  subrogated  to  the  rights 
of  the  bondholders  under  the  act  of  1878  on  condition  of 
redeeming  and  bringing  into  court  the  bonds  of  1878.  To 
this  arrangement  the  state  of  Maryland  strenuously  objected. 
Nevertheless  the  decree  issued  by  the  court  October  2, 
1890,  providing  for  the  sale  of  the  canal  provided  also  that 
the  sale  should  be  estopped  on  condition  that  the  trustees 
under  the  act  of  1844  should,  within  sixty  days  from  Octo- 
ber 2,  1890,  bring  into  court  the  bonds  of  1878,  put  the 
canal  in  repair  by  May  i,  1891,  and  agree  to  operate  it  as  a 
public  water-way,  open  an  office  in  Hagerstown  where 
books  showing  in  detail  all  business  of  the  canal  should  be 
kept  accessible  to  the  court,  and  finally,  if  after  four  years 
from  May  i,  1891,  the  revenues  should  not  equal  or  exceed 
the  expenses  that  the  original  decree  for  a  sale  should 
become  operative,  "unless  the  time  be  extended  by  the  court 
for  good  and  sufficient  cause  shown." 

From  this  decree  an  appeal  was  taken,  but  the  lower 
court  was  sustained,  February  20,  1891,  by  the  Court  of 
Appeals  of  Maryland.  Accordingly  the  trustees  under  the 
act  of  1844  assumed  control.  At  the  expiration  of  four 
years  the  time  was  extended  and  the  canal  continues  to  be 
operated  in  the  same  manner  to  the  present  time. 

An  act  was  passed  by  the  General  Assembly  of  Mary- 
land in  1892  authorizing  the  sale  of  the  state's  interest  in 
the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal,  but  the  matter  was  deferred 
from  time  to  time.  In  1899  several  bids  of  a  rather  favorable 
character  were  received  and  there  is  some  ground  for  expect- 
ing the  sale  to  be  effected  at  an  early  date. 

For  about  a  century  and  a  half  efforts  have  been  put  forth 
to  secure  communication  by  water  between  tide-water  in 
the  Potomac  and  the  head  of  navigation  on  the  Ohio.  Such 
persistence  deserved  better  results.  Such  heroic  perform- 
ances, even  though  attended  almost  uniformly  with  disaster, 
are  unquestionably  worthy  of  record  upon  the  fair  page  of 
history. 
8 


PUBLIC  EDUCATIONAL  WORK 
IN  BALTIMORE 


SERIES  XVII  No.  12 

JOHNS  HOPKINS  UNIVERSITY  STUDIES 


IN 


HISTORICAL  AND   POLITICAL  SCIENCE 

HERBERT  B.  ADAMS,  Editor 


History  is  Past  Politics,  and  Politics  are  Present  History. — FREEMAN. 
Education  of  the  people  is  the  first  duty  of  democracy. — JULES  SIEGFRIED. 


PUBLIC  EDUCATIONAL  WORK 
IN  BALTIMORE 


BY 

HERBERT  B.  ADAMS 


THE  JOHNS  HOPKINS  PRESS,  BALTIMORE 

PUBLISHED  MONTHLY 
DECEMBER,   1899 


Copyright,  1899,  by 

N.  MURRAY 


THE  FRIEDENWALD    COMPANY 
BALTIMORE,  MD.,  U.  S.  A. 


CONTENTS 


PAG* 

I.  JOHNS  HOPKINS  UNIVERSITY 7 

II.  PUBLIC  SCHOOLTEACHERS'  ASSOCIATION  OF  BALTIMORE.  .  14 

III.  TEACHERS'  LECTURES  AT  THE  JOHNS  HOPKINS  UNIVERSITY,  17 

IV.  PUBLIC  EDUCATIONAL  COURSES, 28 

V.  WASHINGTON  AND  BALTIMORE, 37 


PUBLIC  EDUCATIONAL  WORK  IN  BALTIMORE. 


i. 

JOHNS  HOPKINS  UNIVERSITY 

The  Johns  Hopkins  University,  from  its  very  beginning 
in  1876,  has  offered  continuous  and  systematic  courses  of 
public  lectures,  often  as  many  as  twenty  in  a  course  and 
with  a  printed  syllabus  or  bibliography,  to  Baltimore  audi- 
ences ranging  from  200  to  700  hearers.  Without  employ- 
ing any  characteristic  name  for  its  missionary  or  extension 
work  at  home  or  abroad,  the  institution  has  been  actively 
engaged  for  nearly  twenty-five  years  in  widening  its  use- 
fulness. The  system  of  public  lectures,  comprising  a  great 
variety  of  subjects  and  methods  of  treatment,  has  been 
continued  with  increasing  success  down  to  the  present  time. 
Class  courses  have  been  provided  for  school  teachers; 
special  courses  for  special  students,  for  lawyers,  physicians, 
clergymen,  bankers,  business  men,  and  practical  workers  in 
city  charities.  Public  readings  have  been  given  in  Homer, 
Dante,  Chaucer,  and  Shakespeare.  Lectures  on  poetry, 
art,  and  archaeology,  and  many  other  courses  of  public  in- 
struction, sometimes  with  a  text-book  and  a  list  of  good 
authorities,  have  been  welcomed  by  the  people  in  Baltimore. 

Seminary  exercises  or  conferences  in  American  history 
for  the  joint  benefit  of  young  lawyers  from  the  city  and 
Hopkins  students,  were  begun  in  the  library  of  the  Mary- 
land Historical  Society  in  1876,  and  were  continued  in  a 
class-room  at  the  Peabody  Institute  in  1881.  Extended 
courses  of  public  lectures  were  given  under  university  aus- 
at  the  Peabody  Institute  by  Edmund  Gosse  and 


8  Public  Educational  Work  in  Baltimore.  [546 

Professor  Corson  in  1885,  by  Professor  Lanciani  in  1887, 
and  Professor  Andrew  D.  White  in  1888.  In  connection 
with  his  lectures  on  the  French  Revolution,  a  printed  syl- 
labus was  used.  Class  courses  in  natural  science  with 
elaborate  experiments  were  early  conducted  at  the  Pea- 
body  Institute  by  individual  Hopkins  professors  for  classes 
of  young  ladies  from  Baltimore  private  schools. 

In  the  fall  of  1879,  through  the  exertions  of  the  Rev.  J. 
Wynne  Jones,  of  East  Baltimore,  was  organized  the  Work- 
ingmen's  Institute  of  Canton,  an  industrial  district  with  a 
busy  population  of  four  or  five  thousand  laborers,  employed 
in  iron  works,  copper  works,  oyster  packing,  etc.  Mr. 
Jones  had  been  impressed  with  the  story  of  Dr.  Channing's 
lectures  to  workingmen  (1838-40)  and  with  the  good  exam- 
ple of  the  Workingmen's  College  in  London  (1854).  The 
president  of  that  institution,  the  Hon.  Thomas  Hughes 
(author  of  Tom  Brown  at  Rugby),  wrote  Mr.  Jones  an 
encouraging  letter  concerning  his  project. 

From  the  outset  the  co-operation  of  members  of  the  Johns 
Hopkins  University  was  assured.  At  one  of  the  earliest 
meetings  Mr.  Jones  said  he  hoped  the  Institute  "  would  be 
the  beginning,  as  it  were,  of  an  intellectual  solar  system, 
having  the  Johns  Hopkins  University  as  the  central  light 
and  source  of  learning.  Here  was  the  first  little  satellite, 
and  others  should  be  formed  until  there  was  a  perfect  ring 
of  them  in  the  '  Belt '  district,  and  each  one  could  commu- 
nicate light  to  others.  He  was  sure  the  professors  of  the 
University  would  do  all  they  could  in  aid  of  the  Institute, 
for  he  had  found  them  most  warm  and  friendly  in  its 
interest." 

A  committee  representing  the  different  industries  of  Can- 
ton was  appointed  to  call  upon  President  Oilman  and  invite 
him  to  deliver  the  opening  lecture.  This  was  promptly 
done.  Through  the  efficient  co-operation  of  Mr.  N.  Mur- 
ray, of  the  Johns  Hopkins  Press,  who  became  the  secretary 
of  the  Institute,  a  course  of  twelve  "  Lectures  for  the 
People  "  was  arranged  for  the  winter  season  of  1879-80. 


547]  Johns  Hopkins  University.  9 

In  the  opening  lecture  President  Oilman  explained  the 
character  of  the  proposed  course  and  suggested  possible 
lines  of  development  for  the  Institute:  (i)  lectures,  re- 
lieved by  stereopticon  illustrations  and  good  music;  (2)  a 
local  reading-room  with  periodicals  and  illustrated  journals; 
(3)  a  circulating  library;  (4)  supplementary  evening  classes, 
with  lessons  in  drawing  and  the  keeping  of  accounts,  in 
economy,  co-operation,  and  the  principles  of  business.  He 
suggested  also  the  cultivation  of  flowers  indoors,  in  yards, 
and  windows,  as  adding  much  to  the  pleasures  of  city  life, 
with  occasional  exhibitions  to  stimulate  rivalry.  He  ex- 
pressed the  belief  that  four  or  five  such  institutes  as  that  at 
Canton  might  thrive  in  Baltimore.  Many  of  these  good 
suggestions  have  since  been  carried  out. 

Among  other  university  lectures  at  Canton  from  1879  to 
1881  were  Professor  H.  N.  Martin  on  "  Some  Uses  of 
Plants  ";  Professor  Remsen  on  (i)  "  The  Air  We  Breathe," 
and  (2)  "The  Light  We  Use";  and  Dr.  W.  W.  Jacques, 
now  electrician  of  the  Bell  Telephone  Company,  on  "  Elec-. 
tricity,"  illustrated  by  experiments.  Literary  as  well  as 
scientific  lectures  were  given.  Professor  J.  J.  Sylvester, 
one  of  the  original  lecturers  in  the  Workingmen's  College 
at  London  and  after  his  academic  connection  with  Balti- 
more, professor  of  mathematics  at  Oxford,  read  some  of 
his  metrical  translations  from  Schiller.  Professor  Albert 
S.  Cook,  now  of  Yale  University,  lectured  in  Canton  on  the 
"  Life  and  Writings  of  Shakespeare " ;  and  the  present 
writer  gave  an  illustrated  talk  on  "  Venice  and  the  Begin- 
nings of  Modern  Commerce."  Dr.  Samuel  F.  Clarke,  now 
of  Williams  College,  illustrated  the  physical  geography  and 
political  history  of  the  United  States  by  beautiful  maps  and 
charts.  Mr.  C.  L.  Woodworth,  the  first  teacher  of  elocution 
at  the  University,  delighted  his  audience  by  dramatic  and 
humorous  readings.  Vocal  and  instrumental  concerts  were 
occasionally  given  by  the  best  available  talent  in  the  city. 
A  local  reading-room  was  opened  at  Canton  and  flourished 
for  some  years  in  connection  with  a  circulating  library. 


10  Public  Educational  Work  in  Baltimore.  [548 

The  institution  of  a  local  branch  of  the  Pratt  Library  in 
Canton  somewhat  overshadowed  the  Institute  library;  but 
with  increased  facilities  for  readers,  there  is  now  a  better 
chance  than  ever  for  good  class-work  among  the  working- 
men  of  East  Baltimore. 

The  lecture  courses  at  the  Workingmen's  Institute  in 
Canton,  in  East  Baltimore,  led  directly  to  another  interest- 
ing pioneer  experiment.  In  1882,  a  course  of  four  lectures 
on  Biology  was  given  by  instructors  in  the  Biological  De- 
partment of  the  University  to  the  employees  of  the  Balti- 
more and  Ohio  Railroad  and  to  their  wives  and  daughters. 
This  course  was  supported  by  the  late  John  W.  Garrett, 
President  of  the  Baltimore  and  Ohio  Railroad,  who  paid 
the  necessary  expenses  and  published,  for  free  distribution 
among  his  employees,  the  four  lectures  given  by  the  four 
instructors,  in  a  neat  pamphlet  of  98  pages  with  illustra- 
tions (Baltimore,  Friedenwald,  1882).  The  subjects  of  the 
lectures  were  as  follows:  (i)  "  How  Skulls  and  Backbones 
are  Built,"  by  Professor  H.  Newell  Martin;  (2)  "  How  We 
Move,"  by  Dr.  Henry  Sewell;  (3)  "  On  Fermentation,"  by 
Dr.  William  T.  Sedgwick;  (4)  "  Some  Curious  Kinds  of 
Animal  Locomotion,"  by  Dr.  William  K.  Brooks. 

All  the  above  work  was  in  one  sense  University  Exten- 
sion, but  it  was  never  called  by  that  name.  M.  Jourdain, 
in  Moliere's  comedy  Le  Bourgeois  Gentilhomme,  after 
taking  a  private  lesson,  found  to  his  surprise  that  he  had 
been  talking  prose  all  his  life.  American  colleges  and 
universities  have  all  been  engaged  in  popular  educational 
extension,  sometimes  without  knowing  it. 

The  first  conscious  attempts  to  introduce  English  Uni- 
versity Extension  methods  into  this  country  were  made  in 
1887,  by  individuals  connected  with  the  Johns  Hopkins 
University. 

About  the  time  when  various  experiments  were  being 
tried  by  Dr.  E.  W.  Bemis,  a  Hopkins  graduate,  in  Buffalo, 
Canton  and  St.  Louis,  other  individual  members  of  Johns 
Hopkins  University  were  attempting  to  introduce  Univer- 


549]  Johns  Hopkins  University.  11 

sity  Extension  methods  in  connection  with  local  lectures  in 
the  city  of  Baltimore.  The  first  practical  beginning  was 
made  with  a  class  of  young  people  who  met  once  in  two 
weeks,  throughout  the  winter  of  1887-88,  in  the  reading- 
room  of  a  beautiful  modern  church  close  by  the  Woman's 
College.  After  an  introductory  talk  upon  "  University 
Extension "  by  a  Hopkins  instructor,  the  class  was  in- 
trusted to  a  graduate  student,  Mr.  Charles  M.  Andrews, 
now  professor  of  history  in  Bryn  Mawr  College,  who  gave 
a  series  of  instructive  lectures,  accompanied  by  class  exer- 
cises, upon  "  The  History  of  the  Nineteenth  Century,"  with 
Mackenzie  for  a  text-book  on  that  subject.  A  working 
library  of  standard  authorities  was  collected  by  the  joint 
efforts  of  the  leader,  the  class,  and  the  Rev.  John  F. 
Goucher,  then  pastor  of  the  church.  To  the  hearty  and 
generous  co-operation  of  this  gentleman,  now  the  president 
of  the  Woman's  College  of  Baltimore,  the  success  of  this 
initial  experiment,  and  indeed  of  several  others,  is  chiefly 
due. 

Following  the  young  people's  course,  the  like  of  which 
is  entirely  practicable  in  any  church  society  with  a  college 
man  for  class-leader,  came  a  co-operative  and  peripatetic 
course  of  twelve  lectures  for  workingmen  on  "  The  Pro- 
gress of  Labor,"  by  twelve  different  men  from  the  historical 
department  of  the  Johns  Hopkins  University.  These 
twelve  apostles  of  extension  methods  swung  around  a  cir- 
cuit of  three  different  industrial  neighborhoods  in  Balti- 
more, each  man  repeating  his  own  lecture  to  three  different 
audiences.  The  subjects  were  as  follows:  (i)  "The  Edu- 
cational Movement  among  Workingmen  in  England  and 
America,"  by  Dr.  H.  B.  Adams,  of  Baltimore;  (2)  "What 
Workingmen  in  America  Need,"  by  C.  M.  Andrews,  of 
Connecticut;  (3)  "Socialism,  its  Strength  and  Weakness," 
by  E.  P.  Smith,  of  Massachusetts;  (4)  "  Chinese  Labor  and 
Immigration,"  by  F.  W.  Blackmar,  of  California;  (5) 
"  Labor  in  Japan,"  by  T.  K.  lyenaga;  (6)  "  Slave  Labor  in 
Ancient  Greece,"  by  W.  P.  Trent,  of  Virginia;  (7)  "  Labor 


12  Public  Educational  Work  in  Baltimore.  [550 

in  the  Middle  Ages,"  by  J.  M.  Vincent,  of  Ohio;  (8)  "  Me- 
diaeval Guilds,"  by  E.  L.  Stevenson,  of  Indiana;  (9)  "  Labor 
and  Manufactures  in  the  United  States  One  Hundred 
Years  Ago,"  by  Dr.  J.  F.  Jameson,  then  of  Baltimore; 
(10)  "  Industrial  Progress  in  Modern  Times,"  by  H.  B. 
Gardner,  of  Rhode  Island;  (n)  "Industrial  Education," 
by  P.  W.  Ayres,  of  Illinois;  (12)  "Scientific  Charity  and 
Organized  Self-help,"  by  A.  G.  Warner,  of  Nebraska,  then 
General  Agent  of  the  Charity  Organization  Society  of 
Baltimore. 

Every  lecture  was  accompanied  by  a  printed  syllabus  in 
the  hands  of  the  audience,  and  was  followed  by  an  oral 
examination  and  a  class  discussion.  Every  man  lectured 
without  other  notes  than  those  contained  in  his  outline  of 
topics.  The  courses  were  organized  upon  a  business  basis 
and  not  upon  the  theory  of  giving  something  for  nothing. 
This  co-operative  experiment  in  University  Extension  work 
was,  however,  only  moderately  successful.  Probably  it 
was  more  useful  to  the  lecturers  than  to  their  hearers.  It 
is  the  conviction  of  the  writer  that  it  is  mistaken  zeal  for 
university  men  to  attempt  to  lecture  to  workingmen  as 
such,  or  indeed  to  any  "  class  of  people."  University  Ex- 
tension should  be  for  citizens  without  regard  to  their  occu- 
pation. 

The  most  successful  educational  experiments  by  Johns 
Hopkins  men  have  been  in  connection  with  Teachers'  Asso- 
ciations and  Young  Men's  Christian  Associations  in  Bal- 
timore and  Washington.  Under  such  auspices  co-operative 
and  class  courses  in  American  history  and  economic  and 
social  science,  with  printed  syllabuses,  have  been  given 
before  audiences  varying  from  150  to  1000  appreciative 
hearers.  Chautauqua  circles  in  Baltimore  have  also  been 
found  intelligent  and  responsive  to  student  lectures.  Under 
the  direction  of  Hopkins  men  a  three  years'  graduate  course 
of  study  in  English  history  was  successfully  carried  on 
by  more  than  one  thousand  students,  who  had  already 
finished  the  four  years  of  required  study  in  the  Chautauqua 


551]  Johns  Hopkins  University.  13 

Literary  and  Scientific  Circles.  A  very  elaborate  sylla- 
bus, based  on  Green's  "  History  of  England  "  and  select 
volumes  of  the  "  Epoch  Series,"  was  the  means  of  guid- 
ing this  interesting  work  once  in  progress  in  all  parts 
of  the  country.  In  connection  with  the  Chautauqua  Col- 
lege of  Liberal  Arts  more  detailed  courses  in  ancient  and 
modern  history  were  conducted  in  the  same  way,  with 
monthly  written  examinations,  the  papers  being  in  most 
cases  set  and  read  by  Hopkins  graduates,  working  under 
direction  after  the  method  of  Professor  W.  R.  Harper, 
formerly  of  Yale  University,  now  president  of  the  uni- 
versity at  Chicago,  who  was  long  the  recognized  leader  in 
the  higher  educational  work  of  Chautauqua. 


II. 


PUBLIC  SCHOOL  TEACHERS'  ASSOCIATION  OF 
BALTIMORE 

In  a  quiet  and  unobtrusive  way,  beginning  in  1890,  the 
public  school  teachers  of  Baltimore  worked  out  a  good 
system  of  higher  popular  education  for  themselves  and 
their  friends.  The  Association  enrolled  as  many  as  1500. 
Of  this  number  from  300  to  400  took  an  active  interest  in 
Association  work  and  in  their  own  intellectual  improve- 
ment. Association  work  began  with  short  courses  of  five 
lectures,  given  by  professional  educators  from  Baltimore 
and  Washington,  in  the  Concert  Room  of  the  Academy  of 
Music.  Several  of  the  Johns  Hopkins  faculty,  including 
President  Gilman  and  Professors  Elliott,  Remsen,  and 
Adams  contributed  to  these  public  courses.  The  subject 
of  the  Higher  Education  of  the  People  in  England  and 
America  was  presented  by  H.  B.  Adams,  March  7,  1890, 
with  a  printed  syllabus  showing  all  the  features  of  the 
University  Extension  movement. 

In  1891,  the  first  special  courses  of  class  lectures  or 
lessons  were  organized.  In  that  year  was  given  the  first 
class  course  of  ten  lessons  in  Baltimore  on  Kindergarten 
Methods  by  Miss  Susan  P.  Pollock.  Similar  class  courses 
were  given  in  Botany,  in  Chaucer,  and  in  Physical  Train- 
ing. In  1892,  class  courses  of  twenty-four  lessons  were 
organized  under  competent  direction  in  Latin  for  begin- 
ners, in  Vocal  Culture,  and  in  Arithmetic.  A  general 
course  of  illustrated  lectures  was  also  given  on  Literature, 
Travel,  and  Science.  In  1893,  the  class  work  was  still 
further  developed,  and  the  general  course  was  made  more 
attractive.  The  following  year,  special  courses  of  ten  lee- 


553]  Public  School  Teachers'  Association.  15 

tures  each,  with  a  printed  syllabus  for  each  lecture,  were 
given  on  German  Literature  by  Professor  Learned,  and 
on  American  Literature  by  Mrs.  M.  A.  Newell. 

Special  credit  for  the  organization  of  all  of  these  courses 
of  public  instruction  is  due  to  Mr.  Basil  Sellers,  himself  a 
teacher,  and  a  man  of  excellent  scientific  and  historical 
attainments.  He  is  the  author  of  the  chapter  on  Academies 
and  Secondary  Education  in  the  U.  S.  Government  Report 
on  the  History  of  Education  in  Maryland.  In  1894-95, 
Mr.  Sellers  and  other  members  of  the  committee  of  ar- 
rangement, advertised  an  excellent  lecture  course,  to  be 
given  in  the  new  Music  Hall.  Among  the  attractions  were 
Locke  Richardson;  Dr.  Horace  Howard  Furness,  the 
Shakespearean  scholar;  Professor  H.  S.  Clark,  of  the  Uni- 
versity of  Chicago,  who  represents  the  New  Elocution  and 
the  Art  of  Expression;  Professor  Garrett  P.  Serviss,  of 
the  Brooklyn  Institute,  who  lectured  on ~ Astronomy;  Mrs. 
French  Sheldon,  a  grand-niece  of  Sir  Isaac  Newton  and  a 
Fellow  of  the  Royal  Geographical  Society  of  London. 
These  and  several  other  good  lecturers  addressed  the 
Teachers'  Association  on  Friday  or  Saturday  evenings  be- 
ginning in  January  and  continuing  until  the  course  was 
ended.  A  ticket  for  the  entire  series  of  ten  lectures  cost 
only  fifty  cents,  or,  with  a  reserved  seat,  $i.  This  charge 
was  at  the  rate  of  five  or  ten  cents  per  lecture.  As  for  many 
years  at  the  Peabody  Institute,  a  premium  was  put  upon  a 
course  ticket,  but  a  single  admission  cost  twenty-five  cents. 
Over  3000  course  tickets  were  sold.  The  success  of  the 
experiment  in  Music  Hall  was  phenomenal. 

In  1896,  the  Teachers'  Association,  in  addition  to  the 
above  general  course,  made  an  improvement  upon  the 
ordinary  system  of  popular  instruction.  It  introduced 
so-called  "  Lesson  Courses,"  that  is  to  say,  systematic 
class  work  upon  specific  themes,  which  was  continued 
throughout  a  term  of  several  weeks.  For  example,  Dr. 
Learned,  of  the  Johns  Hopkins  University,  lectured  to  a 
class  of  teachers  on  German  Literature  every  Monday 


16  Public  Educational  Work  in  Baltimore,  [554 

afternoon.  Professor  Maupin  conducted  classes  in  Begin- 
ners' Latin,  Intermediate  Latin  (Caesar),  and  Advanced 
Latin  (Virgil),  respectively  on  Mondays,  Tuesdays,  and 
Thursdays  at  4.30  p.  m.  He  had  altogether  125  pupils  in 
Latin.  Professor  Copinger  taught  beginners  in  French  and 
advanced  students  in  French  on  Mondays  and  Wednesdays 
with  altogether  35  pupils.  Professor  Schwier  had  a  class  of 

17  in  German  on  Fridays.    Miss  McCauley  had  a  class  of  40 
in  Shakespeare  on  Wednesdays;  Mr.  Arthur,  a  class  in 
Algebra  on  Fridays;  Mr.   Sellers,  a  class  in  Botany  on 
Thursdays;  and  Miss  Haughwout,  a  class  in  Physical  and 
Vocal  Culture  on  the  same  day.     Besides  these  regular 
classes  there  was  instruction  in   Kindergarten  Work  on 
Tuesdays  by  Miss  Beatty.    All  of  these  classes  were  held  in 
the  rooms  of  the  Western  Female  High  School  at  4.30  p.  m. 
It  is  not  possible  for  busy  teachers  to  undertake  very  much 
extra  work;  the  limitations  of  time  and  place  compel  them 
to  elect  something  specific.     Not  more  than  two  or  three 
hours  of  class  work  were  elected  by  individual  teachers. 
Altogether  about  400  were  enrolled  in  class  courses.     The 
cost  of  24  lessons  was  $2.50.     The  charge  for  ten  lectures 
was  $i. 

The  above  programme  of  "  Lesson  Courses  "  for  busy 
school  teachers  was  one  of  the  best  educational  projects 
developed  in  Baltimore  after  the  excellent  class  courses 
which  once  flourished  at  the  Peabody  Institute.1  Such 
work  is  still  maintained. 

1  See  H.  B.  Adams'  Memorial  of  Dr.  N.  H.  Morison. 


III. 

TEACHERS'  LECTURES  AT  THE  JOHNS  HOPKINS 
UNIVERSITY,  1898-99 

Lectures  for  teachers  are  not  an  altogether  new  feature 
of  public  instruction  at  the  Johns  Hopkins  University.  At 
various  times  educational  talks  have  been  given  by  in- 
vited lecturers;  for  example,  Dr.  William  T.  Harris,  of  the 
Bureau  of  Education,  and  Dr.  James  MacAlister,  of  the 
Drexel  Institute,  Philadelphia.  Public  school  teachers  and 
kindergarten  teachers  were  admitted  to  these  Saturday 
morning  courses.  In  the  early  years  of  the  University, 
1877-78,  laboratory  courses,  especially  in  Biology,  were 
organized  for  the  special  benefit  of  those  Baltimore  teach- 
ers 1  who  were  prepared  to  profit  by  such  facilities. 

Since  its  opening  in  1876,  the  University  has  maintained 
free  courses  of  instruction  by  lectures  which  have  been 
attended  from  year  to  year  by  thousands  of  Maryland  citi- 
zens, men  and  women,  many  of  them  professional  educators 
and  teachers  in  the  public  or  private  schools.  Local  lec- 
tures have  been  given  by  Hopkins  men  in  the  Peabody 
Institute,  in  city  churches,  at  the  Young  Men's  Christian 
Association  in  its  various  branches,  and  also  in  various 
schools  and  colleges  throughout  the  State.  For  many  years 
there  has  been  in  Baltimore  an  organized  Teachers'  Asso- 
ciation, before  which  occasional  lectures  were  given  by 
Hopkins  men.  Teachers'  Associations  and  Institutes,  rep- 
resenting Baltimore  County  and  other  regions,  have  also 
invited  University  men  to  speak  upon  educational  subjects. 


1  See  account  of  Professor  Martin's  educational  work  with  Balti- 
more teachers  in  the  third  and  fourth  annual  reports  of  the  Johns 
Hopkins  University. 


18  Public  Educational  Work  in  Baltimore.  [556 

In  the  spring  of  1898  there  was  an  urgent  request  for 
lectures  especially  adapted  to  the  needs  of  Baltimore  teach- 
ers, and  the  Johns  Hopkins  University  offered  for  the 
winter  season  of  1898-99,  two  class  courses  of  instruction: 

(1)  An  Historical  Series  of  20  lectures,  (i)  on  Educa- 
tion, and  (2)  on  England  and  America. 

(2)  A  Scientific  Series  of  20  lectures   on  (i)   Physical 
Geography  and  (2)  Geology. 

The  Historical  Course  began  on  Friday  evening,  Novem- 
ber 4,  1898,  at  8  o'clock,  in  McCoy  Hall,  and  continued  on 
successive  Fridays  (holidays  excepted)  until  April  14,  1899. 

The  Scientific  Course  began  on  Saturday,  November  5, 
at  9.30  a.  m.  in  McCoy  Hall,  and  continued  at  the  same 
hour  on  successive  Saturdays  until  the  course  was  com- 
pleted, April  15. 

The  Historical  Series  began  with  a  course  of  10  lectures 
on  the  Education  of  the  People.  The  course  was  intro- 
duced by  Mr.  J.  W.  Martin,  of  the  People's  Palace,  who 
gave  an  instructive  talk  on  "  Educational  Work  in  London," 
with  pictorial  illustrations  of  various  polytechnic  institutes, 
evening  continuation  schools,  board  schools,  public  baths, 
etc. 

The  course  was  continued  by  Professor  H.  B.  Adams 
with  a  series  of  special  lectures  on  the  following  subjects: 

(1)  A  Summer  Meeting  of  Teachers  at  Chester,  England; 

(2)  University    Extension    and    the    Cambridge    Summer 
Meeting;  (3)  Summer  Meetings  for  Teachers  in  Edinburgh 
and  Paris;  (4)  Educational  Movements  in  Modern  France; 
(5)  Public  Education  in  Germany;  (6)  Public  Education  in 
England;  (7)  Mediaeval  Schools  and  Universities;  (8)  Clas- 
sical Education;  (9)  Hebrew  Education;  (10)  Chinese  and 
Japanese  Education. 

Instead  of  beginning  with  education  in  antiquity  or  in 
the  far-off  Orient,  Dr.  Adams  deliberately  planned  to  work 
backward  from  the  standpoint  of  present  interest  in  adult 
education  in  certain  modern  educational  movements.  The 
first  three  lectures  of  his  course  have  since  been  published 


557]         Lectures  at  the  Johns  Hopkins  University.  19 

as  Chapter  II  of  the  Report  of  the  Commissioner  of  Edu- 
cation, Volume  II,  1898.  Each  lecture  of  the  entire  series 
was  accompanied  with  a  printed  outline  of  references  of 
good  books  with  questions  requiring  written  answers. 

Following  the  educational  course  came  a  more  strictly, 
historical  series  beginning  with  two  instructive  lectures  on 

(1)  English  Country  Life  in  the  Middle  Ages  and  (2)  Eng- 
lish Towns  in  the  Middle  Ages,  by  Dr.  William  Cunning- 
ham, of  Trinity  College,  Cambridge.     He  was  followed  by 
Albert   H.  Smyth,    Professor   of    English,   Central    High 
School,  Philadelphia,  who  gave  a  graphic  description  of 
the  Land  of  Shakespeare,  based  on  personal  observations 
and  summer  residence  at  Stratford-on-Avon  for   several 
seasons.     Then  followed  a  series  of  four  lectures  by  Dr. 
Guy  Carleton  Lee,  of  the  Johns  Hopkins  University,  on 
the  English  Beginnings  of  American  Institutions,  with  the 
following  special  themes:    (i)  First  English  Settlement  in 
America;  (2)  English  and  Colonial  Churches;  (3)  English 
Law  and  Government;  (4)  Conflict  of  England  and  France 
in  America.     Dr.  Bernard  C.  Steiner,  also  of  the  Johns 
Hopkins  University,  gave  four  lectures  on  American  His- 
tory with  special  reference  to  (i)  American  Geography; 

(2)  Causes  of  the  American  Revolution;  (3)  Adoption  of 
the  Federal  Constitution;  (4)  the  War  of  1812.     Toward 
the  end  of  the  course  a  very  practical  and  suggestive  lec- 
ture on  "  Learning  to  Teach "  was  given  by  Dr.  S.   E. 
Forman,  a  graduate  of  the  Historical  Department  of  the 
University,  now  Director  of  the  Teachers'  Institutes  of  the 
State  of  Maryland. 

In  addition  to  these  lectures,  which  formed  part  of  the 
regular  Historico-Educational  course,  the  following  special 
courses  were  offered,  without  extra  charge,  to  the  public 
school  teachers  holding  tickets  to  the  Historical  Section: 
(i)  Eight  lectures,  in  January  and  February,  by  Dr.  James 
Schouler,  on  "  The  Industrial  History  of  the  United 
States  " ;  (2)  Five  lectures  on  "  The  Diplomatic  Relations 
of  the  United  States  and  Spanish-America "  (reported  in 


20  Public  Educational  Work  in  Baltimore.  [558 

the  University  Circulars  for  March,  1899,  p.  38),  by  Dr. 
John  H.  Latane,  Professor  of  History  in  Randolph-Macon 
Woman's  College,  and  "Albert  Shaw  Lecturer"  in  this 
University  for  1899.  These  two  special  courses  were  given 
respectively  in  the  Donovan  Room  and  McCoy  Hall  on 
alternate  days  at  5  p.  m.  The  attendance,  although  grati- 
fying, showed  that  the  5  o'clock  hour  is  not  so  convenient 
for  public  school  teachers  as  an  evening  appointment  at 
8  o'clock. 

A  striking  feature  of  the  experiment  was  the  large  and 
regular  attendance.  There  were  in  each  course  two  grades 
of  hearers:  (i)  Members  of  the  "  Class,"  who  paid  each  a 
fee  of  $5,  and  who  did  a  certain  amount  of  required  reading 
and  class  work;  and  (2)  simply  attendants  on  lectures,  who 
paid  an  admission  fee  of  $3.  Of  the  first  grade,  or  regular 
members,  there  were  in  the  Historical  Course  117;  in  the 
Scientific  Course  in.  Of  the  second  grade  there  were  191 
attendants  on  the  historical  lectures,  and  115  attendants  on 
the  scientific  lectures.  The  total  number  of  hearers  in 
Science  was  226;  the  total  in  History,  308.  Records  of  at- 
tendance were  kept  from  week  to  week  for  the  classes  only. 
In  spite  of  continued  cold  and  inclement  weather,  the  regu- 
lar members  of  classes  were  almost  invariably  present. 
Every  Friday  night,  at  8  o'clock,  in  McCoy  Hall,  and  every 
Saturday  morning,  at  9.30,  a  large  and  attentive  audience 
greeted  the  lecturer. 

A  special  feature  of  the  historical  course  was  the  written 
exercise  required  from  week  to  week,  in  answer  to  printed 
or  set  questions  connected  with  the  previous  lecture.  These 
exercises  involved  not  merely  an  understanding  of  the  lec- 
ture, but,  in  some  cases,  a  considerable  amount  of  private 
reading.  The  questions,  few  in  number,  led  to  original 
inquiries  in  the  Peabody  and  Pratt  Libraries  and  to  the 
exercise  of  independent  judgment.  The  answers,  which 
sometimes  amounted  to  a  series  of  short  essays  on  assigned 
themes,  were  always  carefully  scrutinized  by  the  lecturer 
or  his  assistants,  and  were  returned  to  the  writers  with  the 


559]         Lectures  at  the  Johns  Hopkins  University.  21 

needed  corrections  or  suggestions.  The  papers  were 
marked  in  the  same  general  or  descriptive  way  as  that  now 
in  vogue  in  the  collegiate  departments  of  the  University, 
and  the  results  from  week  to  week  showed  that  by  far  the 
greater  number  were  ranked  above  the  grade  called  "good." 
From  time  to  time  the  names  of  the  five  leading  members 
of  the  Historico-Educational  class  were  publicly  mentioned 
by  the  lecturer.  To  encourage  the  best  students,  a  prize 
was  offered  at  the  beginning  of  the  above  course. 

Another  feature  of  the  Teachers'  Lectures  was  the  illus- 
tration of  the  subject-matter  by  lantern  views.  Instead  of 
subordinating  the  lecture  to  mere  sight-seeing  or  evening 
entertainment,  the  illustrations  were  usually  given  after 
the  lecture  and  were  always  contributory  to  it.  About  50 
minutes  were  allowed  for  the  lecture  and  note-taking,  with 
about  20  for  the  slides,  which  furnished  an  instructive  and 
pleasing  variation  of  the  lecture  theme.  These  object  les- 
sons were  in  all  cases  carefully  selected  by  the  lecturer  and 
served  a  really  pedagogical  purpose. 

A  third  feature  of  the  Historico-Educational  course  was 
the  systematic  publication  of  select  bibliographies  of  good 
books  on  the  themes  suggested  by  the  lecture  outlines, 
which  were  printed  and  taken  home  by  the  teachers  from 
week  to  week,  with  the  printed  questions  and  topics  for 
home  study.  This  naturally  led  to  considerable  use  of  the 
library  resources  of  Baltimore  and  to  the  practical  discov- 
ery that  the  available  literature  on  educational  history  is 
somewhat  inadequate.  There  is  manifest  need  of  a  good 
working  library  in  this  city  for  the  investigation  and  pro- 
motion of  educational  interests,  primary,  secondary,  and 
higher.  Many  complaints  were  made  by  Baltimore  teachers 
regarding  the  impossibility  of  obtaining  access  to  the  books 
recommended  in  the  select  bibliographies. 

A  fourth  and  very  noteworthy  feature  of  the  Teachers' 
Lectures  was  the  public  interest  in  them  shown  by  the 
teachers  themselves,  by  university  students,  the  public,  the 
press,  the  Superintendent  and  Commissioners  of  the  Public 


22  Public  Educational  Work  in  Baltimore.  [560 

Schools  of  Baltimore,  many  of  whom  were  present  from 
time  to  time.  Earnest  requests  have  been  made  for  the 
continuation  and  further  development  of  these  courses  of 
public  instruction,  which  tend  to  promote  mutual  sympathy 
and  understanding  between  the  University  and  the  City, 
and  also  between  teachers,  public,  private,  and  academic. 
As  a  profession,  the  teaching  class  is  really  one  in  spirit  and, 
in  Baltimore  at  the  present  time,  all  should  unite  in  promot- 
ing the  common  cause  of  education. 

In  connection  with  the  regular  Historico-Educational 
Course,  one  of  two  recommended  text-books  was  required, 
either  Compayre's  "  History  of  Pedagogy "  or  Painter's 
"  History  of  Education."  This  private  reading,  together 
with  the  substance  of  the  educational  lectures  constituted 
the  basis  of  the  written  examination  at  the  end  of  the  course. 
In  addition  to  this  work,  and  the  various  written  exercises, 
a  more  elaborate  essay  was  required  upon  some  special 
subject  suggested  by  the  lectures,  either  historical  or  edu- 
cational. Prizes  in  books  were  offered  for  the  best  essays. 
A  simple  certificate  was  prepared,  on  the  Oxford  model, 
for  those  members  of  the  class  whose  final  examination, 
required  essay,  written  exercises,  and  attendance  were  pro- 
nounced satisfactory  by  the  examiner. 

The  following  account  of  the  Scientific  Course  was 
written  by  Dr.  George  B.  Shattuck,  the  lecturer  and  exam- 
iner in  that  course: 

The  teachers  attending  the  Scientific  Course  concentrated 
their  attention  on  studies  in  Geology  and  Physical  Geog- 
raphy. In  this  course  four  lines  of  instruction  were  fol- 
lowed. These  were  first,  the  lectures;  second,  essay  writ- 
ing; third,  the  journal  club;  and  fourth,  field  excursions. 

The  lectures  were  delivered  on  Saturday  mornings  at 
9.30,  in  McCoy  Hall,  and  were  scheduled  so  as  to  cover 
systematically  a  large  range  of  topics  in  Dynamical,  Phys- 
iographical  and  Historical  Geology  and  Physical  Geogra- 
phy. The  following  is  a  synopsis  of  the  lecture  course: 
November  5,  The  Atmosphere;  12,  Rain;  19,  Rivers  in 


561]          Lectures  at  the  Johns  Hopkins  University.  23 

General;  December  3,  Classification  of  Rivers;  10,  The  Life 
History  of  Niagara  and  the  Development  of  the  Great 
Lakes;  17,  Lakes;  January  7,  Ice  in  General;  14,  Glaciers; 
21,  Geological  Work  of  Organisms;  28,  Oceans;  February 
4,  Volcanoes;  n,  Mountains  and  Continents;  18,  Geog- 
raphic Distribution  of  Organisms;  25,  Paleontology;  March 
4,  Precambrian  Time;  n,  Cambrian  and  Silurian  Time;  18, 
Devonian,  Carboniferous  and  Permian  Time;  25,  Mesozoic 
Time;  April  8,  Tertiary  Time;  15,  Quaternary  Time.  The 
subject-matter  of  these  lectures  was  treated  so  as  to  convey 
a  comprehensive  idea  of  the  various  forces  at  work  on  the 
earth's  surface  and  within  its  mass,  as  well  as  to  give  a 
broad  outlook  over  the  history  of  the  earth  as  a  whole. 

From  time  to  time  essays  were  assigned,  on  special  topics 
discussed  in  the  lectures,  in  order  that  the  instructor  could 
follow  more  carefully  the  progress  of  those  participating  in 
this  exercise.  These  essays  were  carefully  examined  in 
detail  and  corrections  and  suggestions  made  wherever 
necessary. 

References  and  bibliographies,  which  had  been  printed 
and  circulated,  both  aided  the  teachers  in  preparing  their 
essays  and  served  as  a  guide  for  those  who  desired  to  read 
some  of  the  leading  works  on  geology  and  geography. 

The  journal  club  was  held  Tuesday  afternoons  through- 
out the  months  of  December,  January,  February  and  March. 
The  teachers  who  took  part  in  this  exercise  reviewed  papers 
on  geological  and  geographical  subjects  published  in  the 
various  scientific  periodicals.  During  the  four  winter 
months  a  large  number  of  books  and  papers  were  reviewed 
and  discussed  in  the  club  and  the  desire  of  keeping  abreast 
of  the  current  literature  was  thus  cultivated. 

Numerous  geological  excursions,  into  the  region  about 
Baltimore,  were  planned  and  began  as  soon  as  the  weather 
permitted.  The  object  of  these  excursions  was  to  point 
out  in  the  field  many  of  the  phenomena  which  were  dis- 
cussed in  the  lectures.  Explanations  were  given  in  the 
field.  Teachers  provided  themselves  with  hammers  and 


24  Public  Educational  Work  in  Baltimore.  [562 

notebooks  in  order  to  collect  specimens  and  record  obser- 
vations. Many  of  the  teachers  were  in  this  way  placed  in 
a  position  to  conduct  small  excursions  of  school  children 
into  the  country  on  pleasant  holiday  afternoons  and  point 
out  to  them  the  meaning  of  the  objects  with  which  every- 
day contact  has  made  them  familiar. 

A  longer  excursion  was  projected  to  Niagara  Falls.  This 
outing  took  the  form  of  a  scientific  expedition  and  many 
points  of  interest  other  than  Niagara  were  visited. 

Professor  William  B.  Clark  exercised  general  direction 
over  the  course,  while  the  instruction  was  given  by  Dr. 
George  B.  Shattuck.  Mr.  Bailey  Willis,  of  the  United 
States  Geological  Survey,  delivered  a  most  instructive  lec- 
ture on  "  Mountains  and  Continents." 

FINAL  EXAMINATION  OF  TEACHERS  IN  THE  HISTORICO- 

EDUCATIONAL  COURSE,  APRIL  15,  1899. 

TIME  2  HOURS 

1.  Influence  of  Early  Christian  Teaching  on  Education. 

2.  How  did  the  Mediaeval   Church  and   Cloister  teach 
the  People? 

3.  Significance  of  the  Revival  of  Greek. 

4.  Briefly  characterize  German  Educational  Reform  in 
the  1 6th  Century. 

5.  Mention  some  of  the  Leaders  of  French  Education  in 
the  1 7th  Century. 

6.  Of  what  use  were  the  Theorists  of  the  i8th  Century? 

7.  Popular  Educational  Progress  in  the  igth  Century. 

LIST  OF  SUBJECTS  CHOSEN  FOR  ESSAYS  BY  BALTIMORE 
TEACHERS 

1.  Thomas  Arnold  and  his  Influence  as  an  Educator. 

2.  Schools  of  Athens  before  the  Christian  Era. 

3.  Sketch  of  the  University  of  Cambridge. 

4.  Charles  the  Great  and  his  Patronage  of  Education. 

5.  John  Amos  Comenius. 


563]         Lectures  at  the  Johns  Hopkins  University.  25 

6.  Comenius  and  Pestalozzi.  (5) 

7.  Egypt  and  Greece  before  Christ. 

8.  Ancient  Egyptian  Civilization. 

9.  Classical  Education. 

10.  Evolution  of  Education  in  the  United  States. 

11.  Mediaeval  Education. 

12.  Rise  of  the  New  Education. 

13.  Civil  Liberty  and  Popular  Education. 

14.  Popular  Education  in  Maryland. 

15.  Growth  of  the  Modern  Idea  in  Education. 

16.  Beginnings  and  Growth  of  Popular  Education  in  the 
U.  S.  (3) 

17.  Progress  of  Education  in  England. 

18.  A  Sketch  of  the  Progress  of  Education. 

19.  Educational  History  of  the  U.  S. 

20.  Educational  Ideals  of  the  Ages. 

21.  Educational  Moldings. 

22.  The  French  Academy. 

23.  Life  and  Teachings  of  Froebel. 

24.  Culture  in  Ancient  Greece. 

25.  Hebrew    Education   and   its    Influence   on    Modern 
Culture. 

26.  Old  and  New  Ideals. 

27.  Influence  of  Education  on  the  Indian. 

28.  Relations  of  the  English  and  French  to  the  Indians 
of  America. 

•  29.  Education  in  Japan. 

30.  The  Jesuits  as  Educators. 

31.  Education  among  the  Ancient  Jews. 

32.  Condition  of  the  Jews  in  the  Middle  Ages. 

33.  Early  Education  of  the  Jews  and  its  Influence  upon 
Civilization. 

34.  Massachusetts  and  Virginia — Harvard  and  William 
and  Mary. 

35.  French  Monastic  and  Church  Schools  in  the  Middle 
Ages. 

36.  Monastic  and  Church  Schools  in  the  Middle  Ages.  (2) 


26  Public  Educational  Work  in  Baltimore.  [564 

37.  The  Northmen  and  Normans. 

38.  Oxford  and  Cambridge. 

39.  Summary  of  the  History  of  Pedagogy. 

40.  Pestalozzi.  (3) 

41.  Port  Royalists. 

42.  Regeneration  of  Prussia. 

43.  Some  Beginnings  of  the  Renaissance. 

44.  The  Hotel  de  Rambouillet  and  the  Salons  of  the  Old 
Regime.   (4) 

45.  Saracenic  Contributions  to  Civilization. 

46.  Early  English  Schools  and  Scholars.   (2) 

47.  The  Evolution  of  a  State. 

48.  Stein  and  the  Regeneration  of  Prussia. 

49.  English  Universities.   (2) 

50.  German  Universities. 

51.  The  Utility  of  Universities. 

52.  Development  of  Constitutional  Liberty  in  Virginia. 

53.  Higher     Education     of     European     and    American 
Women. 

54.  Influence  of  Women  in  the  English  Reformation. 

55.  Higher  Education  of  Women. 

56.  Higher  Education  of  Women  in  England. 

PRIZE  WINNERS  IN  THE  HISTORICAL-EDUCATIONAL 
COURSE 

Each  person  received  five  carefully  chosen  books,  com- 
bining educational,  historical,  literary,  biographical,  patriotic 
or  romantic  interests.  The  award  was  made  upon  the  basis 
of  the  written  essay,  the  weekly  written  exercise,  regular 
attendance,  and  final  examination.  The  winners  were  all 
of  the  same  rank  and  are  arranged  in  alphabetical  order: 

Augusta  F.  Ditty,  Maud  Hazeltine, 

Jessie  J.  Fitzgerald,  Mary  R.  Le  Compte  Hess, 

Jacob  Grape,  Harriet  L.  Hopkins, 

Barbara  Schunck. 


565]          Lectures  at  the  Johns  Hopkins  University. 


LIST  OF  TEACHERS  RECEIVING  CERTIFICATES  IN  THE 
EDUCATIONAL-HISTORICAL  COURSE 

All  of  these  candidates  wrote  special  essays  and  passed 
the  final  examination.  From  all  were  required  weekly  exer- 
cises. Some  were  more  regular  than  others  in  attendance. 
At  least  12  stood  very  near  the  honor  list: 


Edward  S,.  Addison, 
L.  Elizabeth  Andrew, 
Fannie  Ash, 
M.  I.  Barney, 
Flora  Becker, 
Jessie  S.  Bell, 
John  S.  Black, 
Jennie  G.  Borrell, 
Amicie  M.  Brun, 
Mary  Bunworth, 
Agnes  G.  Carlisle, 
Helen  G.  Chowning, 
Agnes  V.  Corcoran, 
Elizabeth  Crummer, 
Gerriet  D ewers, 
Celesta  L.  Diggs, 
Augusta  F.  Ditty, 
Mary  Graham  Duff, 
Isabel  P.  Evans, 
Clara  B.  Fishpaw, 
Jessie  J.  Fitzgerald, 
Adelaide  A.  Glascock, 
Jacob  Grape, 
Ella  Harrison, 
Caroline  Hayden, 
Maud  Hazeltine, 
Clara  Herman, 
Mary  R.  Le  Compte  Hess, 
Harriet  L.  Hopkins, 
Ella  M.  S.  Horstmeier, 
Bella  S.  Hunter, 
Minna  C.  Kaessmann, 
Elizabeth  R.  Kearney, 


Mary  E.  W.  King, 
M.  Josephine  Krager, 
Irene  Leonard, 
Annie  C.  Meushaw, 
Eula  R.  Pollard, 
Mary  M.  Quinn, 
Alberta  F.  Reid, 
Carrie  Rodgers, 
Blanche  Rosenthal, 
Lavinia  Schleisner, 
Anna  C.  Schloegel, 
Anna  Schmidt, 
Barbara  Schunck, 
M.  Alice  Smith, 
Lilian  M.  Skinner, 
Lydia  E.  Spence, 
Guy  Spencer, 
Marshall  Stitely, 
Carrie  M.  Sumwalt, 
Mary  H.  Sumwalt, 
Maggie  Swain, 
Lida  L.  Tall, 
Clara  V.  Tapman, 
Louise  E.  Thalwitzer, 
Nellie  A.  Tompkins, 
Annie  R.  Tull, 
Saida  A.  Wallace, 
Mrs.  Benjamin  Wallis, 
Estelle  S.  Walters, 
Bertha  Warfield, 
L.  Ava  Weedon, 
M.  Josephine  Wilson, 
Helen  McCay  Young. 


IV. 
PUBLIC  EDUCATIONAL  COURSES,  1899-1900 

During  the  current  academic  year  the  scope  of  the  winter 
courses  of  public  instruction  has  been  somewhat  widened. 
Last  season  a  single  course  of  twenty  lectures  was  given  in 
the  representative  science  of  Physical  Geography.  This 
year  there  is  an  advanced  course  in  this  subject,  including 
Meteorology,  and  also  a  course  of  twenty  lectures  in  Phys- 
ics, including  laboratory  exercises. 

The  lectures  in  physical  geography  are  given  under  the 
auspices  of  the  Geological  Department.  Dr.  Shattuck,  who 
opened  the  course,  is,  in  addition  to  being  one  of  the  asso- 
ciates in  Geology,  Chief  of  the  Coastal  Plain  Division  of  the 
Maryland  Geological  Survey  and  has  made  a  special  study 
of  physiographic  processes.  The  general  course  which  he 
gave  in  1898-99  was  largely  attended  by  teachers  and  others 
desirous  of  acquiring  a  thorough  knowledge  of  the  prin- 
ciples of  physical  geography. 

Dr.  Fassig,  in  addition  to  being  an  instructor  in  mete- 
orology at  the  University,  is  also  a  Section  Director  of  the 
U.  S.  Weather  Bureau,  assigned  to  work  in  connection  with 
the  Maryland  State  Weather  Service,  and  has  a  very  inti- 
mate knowledge  of  the  meteorology  of  Maryland. 

The  lectures  of  Dr.  Shattuck  and  Dr.  Fassig  are  admir- 
ably adapted  to  teachers  and  others  who  desire  information 
not  only  regarding  the  general  principles  of  physical  geog- 
raphy but  also  a  concise  knowledge  of  the  physiographic 
conditions  of  Maryland. 

The  courses  in  Physics  under  the  direction  of  Professor 
Ames  are  given  in  the  Physical  Laboratory,  and  are  de- 
signed to  offer  instruction  in  various  branches  of  the  subject, 
making  a  fairly  systematic  course.  The  lectures  are  illus- 


567]  Public  Educational  Courses,  iSpp-ipoo.  29 

trated  by  experiments  and  by  lantern  demonstrations,  and 
are  suited  for  a  public  audience  as  well  as  for  those  who  are 
teachers  or  students. 

The  laboratory  exercises  are  offered  exclusively  to  teach- 
ers of  Physics,  and  an  attempt  is  made  to  offer  suitable  in- 
struction in  the  preparation  of  lectures  and  in  the  direction 
of  laboratory  work.  It  is  expected  that  from  time  to  time 
lecturers  from  other  universities  will  be  invited  to  take  part 
in  the  Physical  course. 

Last  season  a  course  of  twenty  lectures  was  given  upon 
historical  and  educational  subjects. 

This  year  three  short  courses  of  lectures  in  English  Lit- 
erature, by  Professor  Albert  H.  Smyth,  of  Philadelphia,  illus- 
trated by  lantern  views,  are  in  progress.  On  Nov.  10, 
Dr.  James  E.  Russell,  Dean  of  the  Teachers'  College, 
Columbia  University,  New  York,  gave  an  address  on  the 
theory  of  normal  education  and  the  aims  of  the  institution 
of  which  he  is  the  head.  Nov.  17,  Dr.  James  MacAlister, 
President  of  the  Drexel  Institute,  lectured  on  the  public 
school  system  of  Philadelphia. 

It  is  not  possible  for  any  one  to  attend  all  of  these  classes. 
Some  are  held  on  Friday  evenings  and  Saturday  mornings, 
at  times  the  most  convenient  for  public  school  teachers. 
Other  courses  are  given  in  the  afternoon,  during  the  week ; 
but  all  of  the  following  are  public  educational  courses  and 
are  open  to  applicants  at  a  moderate  charge.  (See  below 
under  "  Fees.") 

Citizens  of  Baltimore  and  Maryland,  whether  engaged  in 
teaching  or  not,  now  enjoy  in  the  winter  season  the  privi- 
leges which  in  some  academic  communities  are  offered  in 
summer  sessions.  It  is  hoped  that  many  attendants  upon 
lectures  may  be  attracted  from  the  country  as  well  as  from 
the  city,  and  that  students  from  Washington  and  vicinity, 
possibly  persons  from  Virginia  and  other  States,  may  find 
winter  residence  in  this  city. 

Special  arrangements  have  been  made  to  encourage 
county  teachers,  and  persons  living  at  a  distance  from  Bal- 


30  Public  Educational  Work  in  Baltimore.  [568 

timore,  to  attend  the  Friday  evening  and  Saturday  morning 
lectures. 

The  attention  of  clergymen,  Charity  Organization  work- 
ers, and  the  friends  of  municipal  improvement  should  be 
called  to  two  courses  of  Dr.  Jeffrey  R.  Brackett  and  Dr.  J. 
H.  Hollander  (author  of  "  The  Financial  History  of  Balti- 
more "),  devoted  to  "  Studies  of  the  Modern  City." 

Fees.  The  courses  in  English  Literature  constituted  one 
series  of  18  lectures,  for  which  one  fee  of  $3  for  attendance 
was  required  at  the  Treasurer's  office.  For  attendance  with 
the  additional  privilege  of  class  work,  consisting  of  written 
exercises  and  final  examination,  the  fee  was  $5.  The  same 
terms  were  required  for  the  course  on  Advanced  Physical 
Geography,  and  also  for  the  course  of  twenty  lectures  on 
Physics.  The  charge  for  laboratory  privileges  in  Physics 
on  Saturday  mornings,  twenty  exercises,  was  $5 ;  for  labora- 
tory privileges  in  zoology,  $10.  The  two  courses  under  IV. 
formed  a  public  educational  series,  for  which  the  fee  was  $3. 
The  introductory  lectures  in  the  teachers'  educational  course 
were  free. 

Certificate.  For  regular  attendance,  satisfactory  class  or 
laboratory  work,  and  final  examination,  a  simple  certificate 
is  to  be  awarded  to  successful  students  in  any  public  educa- 
tional course. 

PROSPECTUS. 

I. 
Advanced  Physical  Geography.      (20  lectures.) 

(i)  GEOLOGY.  Five  class  lectures  by  Dr.  GEORGE  B. 
SHATTUCK,  beginning  in  McCoy  Hall,  Saturday  morning, 
November  4,  at  10.30,  and  continuing  weekly  at  this  hour 
in  the  same  place. 

Lecture      I.  The  Cause  of  a  Glacial  Period. 

Lecture     II.  The  Age  of  the  Earth. 

Lecture  III.  The  Ocean  from  a  Geological  Point  of  View. 

Lecture   IV.  Critical  Periods  in  the  Earth's  History. 

Lecture     V.  The  Antiquity  of  Man. 


569] 


Public  Educational  Courses,  i#pp-jpoo. 


31 


(2)  METEOROLOGY.  Fifteen  class  lectures  by  Dr.  OLI- 
VER L.  FASSIG,  according  to  the  following  outline  of  topics, 
will  be  given  on  Saturday  mornings  after  the  close  of  Dr. 
Shattuck's  course: 

Lecture         I.  )  The  Temperature  of  the  Atmosphere.     (Lantern  illustra- 

j.      tions.) 

Lecture       II.  )  Temperature  defined.      How  it  is  measured.      Solar 

radiation.      Variations  in  temperature  at  the  earth's 

surface.    The  temperature  of  space.     The  functions 

of  the  atmosphere. 

Lecture     III.  \  Forms  of  Water  in  the  Atmosphere.     (Lantern  illustra- 

v      tions.) 

IV.  )  The  vapor  of  water.  Humidity.  Evaporation.  Dew. 
Frost  and  frost-forms.  Fog.  Clouds  and  cloud- 
forms.  Rain,  snow,  and  hail.  Rainfall  and  its 
measurement;  its  variations  and  its  distribution 
at  the  earth's  surface.  Theories  of  rain-formation. 
Lecture  V.  The  Weight  and  Extent  of  the  Atmosphere.  (Lantern 

illustrations.) 

Measuring  the  pressure  of  the  air.  Variations  in 
pressure.  Relation  between  pressure  and  wind- 
direction  and  velocity.  The  height  of  the  atmos- 
phere. The  distribution  of  atmospheric  pressure 
at  the  earth's  surface.  Areas  of  high  and  low 
pressure. 

Lecture     VI.  )  The  Movements  of  the  Atmosphere.      (Lantern  illustra- 
VII.  V      tions.) 

VIII.  )  Winds  and  their  causes.  The  measurement  of  wind, 
velocity  and  direction.  Variations  in  wind-velocity 
and  direction.  Periodic  winds.  Cyclonic  winds. 
Permanent  winds.  The  general  circulation  of  the 
atmosphere.  Storms:  dustwhirls,  thunderstorms, 
tornadoes,  waterspouts,  cyclones  and  anti-cyclones. 
Factors  in  the  formation,  maintenance,  and  pro- 
gression of  storms.  The  geographical  distribution 
of  storms. 
Lecture  IX.  Weather,  or  the  Transient  Phases  of  the  Atmosphere. 

A  study  of  the  daily  synoptic  weather  charts.  (Lan- 
tern illustrations.) 

Lecture       X.      Climate,  or  the  Average  Character  of  the  Weather.     (Lan- 
tern illustrations.) 

Climate  defined.     Climatic  factors.     Determination  of 
average   values.     Climatic   zones.     Ocean-climates. 
Continental  climates.     Mountain  climates. 
Lecture      XI.     Do  Climates  Change? 

Lecture    XII.  )  Foretelling  the  Weather.     (Lantern  illustrations.) 
XIII.  J  The  methods  of  the  ancients — and  some  moderns. 

Modern  official  methods. 
Lecture  XIV.    The   Work  of  a  National    Weather  Bureau.      (Lantern 

illustrations.) 

Lecture    XV.     Two    Centuries   of  Progress   in   Meteorology.      (Lantern 
illustrations.) 


32  Public  Educational  Work  in  Baltimore.  [570 

PROPOSED  TOPICS  FOR  A  SUPPLEMENTARY  COURSE. 
Friday  afternoon  informal  conferences  on  the  practical  bear- 
ings of  meteorology  and  on  the  work  of  meteorological 
bureaus  will  be  arranged  for  those  taking  the  course  in 
Physical  Geography,  without  additional  fees. 

1.  The  equipment  of  an  observing  station. 

2.  The  meteorological  work  of  the  U.  8.  Hydrographic  Office  upon 

the  oceans. 

3.  The  organization  and  work  of  foreign  services. 

4.  Practical   lesson  in  the  construction  and  interpretation  of  the 

daily  weather  chart. 

5.  Meteorological  instruments  and  their  installation. 

6.  The  use  of  kites  and  balloons  in  the  exploration  of  the  atmosphere. 

7.  Meteorology  as  a  nature  study  in  the  public  schools. 

8.  Mountain  meteorological  stations. 

9.  The  literature  of  meteorology. 

10.     Some  American  contributions  and  contributors  to  meteorology. 

II. 

Physics. 

There  will  be  two  courses  in  Physics,  as  follows : 
First,  a  Series  of  Twenty  Lectures  on  Special  Topics  by 
Professor  AMES: 

1.  Vibrating  Bodies.  11.  Elementary  Electricity. 

2.  Spinning  Tops.  12.  Electrical  Conduction. 

3.  Fluid  Motion.  13.  Induced  Electric  Currents. 

4.  Soap  Bubbles.  14.  X-Rays. 

5.  Flying  Machines.  15.  Lightning. 

6.  Theory  of  Music.  16.  Telegraphy  with  and  without 

7.  Mechanical  Theory  of  Heat.  Wires. 

8.  Radiation  and  Conduction  of  17.  Wave  Theory  of  Light. 

Heat.  18.     Color  Photography. 

9.  Liquefaction  or  Gases.  19.     Spectrum  Analysis. 

10.     Magnets.  20.     Constitution  of  the  Sun. 

This  course  will  begin  Saturday,  November  4,  at  9  a.  m.,  in  the 
Physical  Laboratory,  and  continue  weekly  at  the  same  hour  in  that  place. 
The  lectures  will  be  illustrated  by  experiments  and  demonstrations. 

Second,  a  Laboratory  Course  designed  for  Teachers  of 
Physics.  This  will  consist  of  work  in  the  Physical  Labora- 
tory on  Saturday  mornings,  at  10  o'clock;  and  opportuni- 
ties will  be  given  the  members  of  the  class  to  set  up  appa- 
ratus for  lecture  purposes  and  to  perform  suitable  experi- 
ments. This  class  will  not  be  formed  unless  twenty-five 
students  are  enrolled. 


571]  Public  Educational  Courses,  1899-1900.  33 

III. 
Zoology. 

A  practical  course  in  Zoology  is  offered,  provided  twenty- 
five  students  are  assured  at  once.  A  larger  number  cannot 
be  accommodated. 

The  work  will  be  done  in  the  Biological  Laboratory  Sat- 
urdays from  9  to  i  o'clock,  November  n  to  March  14  in- 
clusive— seventeen  sessions,  or  sixty-eight  hours,  in  all. 

The  ground  covered  will  be:  the  use  of  the  microscope; 
microscopic  study  of  fresh  water  infusoria  (e.g.  Amceba,  the 
Bell-animalcule,  the  Slipper-animalcule)  and  of  the  Hydra; 
dissection  of  the  Earthworm,  Mussel,  Insect,  Crayfish,  Crab, 
and  Frog ;  study  of  the  Frog's  egg  and  the  Tadpole. 

The  laboratory  work  will  be  superintended  by  Dr.  E.  A. 
Andrews,  Associate  Professor  of  Biology,  and  by  Mr.  W.  C. 
Curtis,  Assistant  in  Biology.  In  each  session,  an  explana- 
tory lecture  will  be  given  by  Professor  Andrews. 

Such  books  and  implements  as  are  not  supplied  by  the 
University  should  not  exceed  in  cost  two  dollars.  The  fee 
for  the  course  is  $10,  payable  in  advance  at  the  Treasurer's 
office. 

IV. 
Studies  of  the  Modern  City.     (20  lectures.) 

Part  i.  PUBLIC  AID,  CHARITY,  AND  CORRECTION.  A 
course  of  ten  lectures  is  offered  by  Dr.  JEFFREY  R. 
BRACKETT  upon  problems  of  Public  Aid,  Charity,  and  Cor- 
rection, with  particular  reference  to  social  conditions  in  the 
large  cities  of  the  United  States.  Beginning  with  the  grow- 
ing opportunities  and  the  need  of  education  for  social  ser- 
vice, the  lectures  will  treat  of  the  general  tendencies  towards 
the  restoration  of  dependents  and  the  prevention  of  depend- 
ence. Illustrations  will  be  given  from  conditions  in  Balti- 
more, and  the  course  is  aimed  to  be  of  especial  use  to 
clergymen  and  to  students  who  plan  to  take  up  practical 
social  work. 


34  Public  Educational  Work  in  Baltimore.  [572 

This  course  will  begin  Monday,  November  13,  at  4  p.  m., 
in  the  Donovan  Room,  and  continue  on  successive  Mondays 
at  the  same  hour  and  place. 

The  topics  will  be  as  follows : 

1.  Study  of  Philanthropy.  6.     Public  Aid  or  Charitable  Aid. 

2.  Causes  of  Poverty,  Pauperism,         7.     Reformation. 

and  Crime.  8.  Child-saving. 

3.  The  Aim  of  Philanthropy.  9.  Neighborhood    Improvement 

4.  Treatment  of  the  Homeless.  and  Personal  Contact. 

5.  Treatment     of    the    Resident  10.  The   Church    as   a  Factor  in 

Needy.  Social  Progress. 

Part  2.  CITY  GOVERNMENT  AND  CITY  IMPROVEMENT. 
A  course  of  ten  lectures,  following  Dr.  Brackett's,  is  offered 
by  Associate  Professor  J.  H.  HOLLANDER  upon  the  prin- 
ciples and  practice  of  Municipal  Government,  with  particu- 
lar reference  to  current  municipal  problems  in  the  United 
States.  The  method  of  treatment  will  be  descriptive,  critical 
and  comparative.  Beginning  with  a  discussion  of  the 
growth  and  significance  of  the  modern  industrial  city,  atten- 
tion will  be  paid  to  the  characteristic  features  of  municipal 
organization  in  Great  Britain,  France  and  Germany.  The 
evolution  of  the  American  city  will  then  be  traced,  and  de- 
tailed study  made  of  municipal  administration,  finances  and 
functions  in  the  United  States.  In  conclusion,  the  future 
and  the  possibilities  of  the  American  city  will  be  discussed. 

This  course  will  be  given  in  the  Donovan  Room  on  Mon- 
days at  5  p.  m.,  beginning  in  the  latter  half  of  January,  after 
the  close  of  Dr.  Brackett's  course.  One  fee  of  $3  is  required 
for  the  two  courses,  including  brief  class  discussions. 

The  topics  will  be  as  follows: 

1.  The   Problems    of    Municipal         6.     The  Evolution  of  the  Amer- 

Government.  ican  City. 

2.  The  Growth  of  Cities.  7.     Municipal  Administration  in 

3.  Municipal  Government  in  Great  the  United  States. 

Britain.  8.     Municipal    Finances    in    the 

4.  Municipal     Government     in  United  States. 

France.  9.     Municipal   Functions  in   the 

5.  Municipal  Government  in  Ger-  United  States. 

many.  10.     The      Possibilities      of     the 

American  City. 


573]  Public  Educational  Courses,  i#pp-ipoo.  35 

V. 
Modern  English  Literature.     (18  lectures.) 

(1)  LIVING  WRITERS  OF  ENGLAND.    Six  class  lectures 
by  Professor  ALBERT  H.  SMYTH,  of  Philadelphia,  in  McCoy 
Hall,  beginning  at  8  o'clock  Friday  evening,  December  15, 
and  continuing  Saturday  noon,  December  16;  Friday  even- 
ing, December  22,  Saturday  noon,  December  23;  Friday 
evening,  January  5,  and  Saturday  noon,  January  6. 

This  course  of  lectures  is  prepared  entirely  from  personal 
knowledge  and  acquaintance,  and  contains  material  that  has 
never  found  its  way  into  print.  The  lecturer's  purpose  is  to 
introduce  the  student  to  the  writers  who  are  to-day  the 
acknowledged  chiefs  of  English  literature,  to  portray  their 
personal  traits,  and  to  describe  their  methods  and  their  mis- 
sion. The  lectures  are: 

I.     Thomas  Hardy. 
II.     George  Meredith. 

III.     Algernon  Charles  Swinburne. 

IV-     The  Minor  Poets. 
V.     The  Literary  Scholars  and  Critics. 

VI.     The  Journalists. 

Lecture  IV  contains  sketches  of  the  personal  career  and  appreciations 
of  the  verse  of  the  following  poets :  Francis  Thompson,  Stephen 
Phillips,  Lawrence  Binyon,  Lionel  Johnson,  John  Davidson,  Ernest 
Coleridge,  W.  B.  Yeats,  Moncy-Coutts. 

Lecture  V  relates  to  such  critics  as  Lang,  Courthope,  Saintsbury, 
Stopford  Brooke,  Sydney  Lee,  Dowden,  Hereford,  Furnivall,  Knight, 
and  Aldi-Wright. 

Lecture  VI  defines  the  character  and  describes  the  personnel  of  the 
literary  papers  of  England — quarterly,  monthly,  and  weekly  reviews, 
and  the  daily  papers  which  devote  attention  to  literary  matters. 

(2)  THE  LAKE  COUNTRY — PAST  AND  PRESENT.    These 
lectures,  also  by  Professor  Smyth,  are  illustrated  with  en- 
tirely new  lantern  views.     The  photographs  of  Cumberland 
scenery  and  of  Westmoreland  places  and  people  were  taken 
under  Professor  Smyth's  direction.     This  series  will  begin 
Friday  evening,  January  12,  and  continue  Saturday  noon, 
January  13,  and  so  until  January  27. 

I.  Life  and  Nature  in  the  Lake  Country.  (Summary  :  Geography 
of  the  Lake  Country  ;  language,  folk-lore,  and  customs  of  the 
country;  Daffodil  Day;  rushbearing;  views  of  the  historic 
ruins  and  natural  scenery  of  the  region.) 


36  Public  Educational  Work  in  Baltimore.  [574 

II.  Literary  associations  of  the  Lakes.  (Illustrated  with  views  of 
the  interior  and  exterior  of  Rydal  Mount,  Dove  Cottage,  Nab 
Cottage,  The  Knoll,  Fox  How,  Fox  Shyll,  Elleray,  and  Brant- 
wood.) 

III.  William  Wordsworth. 

IV.  Coleridge  and  his  Children. 

V.     Robert  Southey,  John  Wilson,  and  Thomas  De  Quincey. 
VI.     Harriet   Martineau,    the   Arnolds,    John   Ruskin,    and    William 
Watson. 

(3)  BURNS  AND  SCOTT.  This  series  will  begin  Friday 
evening,  February  2,  and  continue  Saturday  noon,  Febru- 
ary 3,  and  so  on  to  February  17. 

I.     The  Land  of  Burns  (fully  illustrated  by  Professor  Smyth,  with 

new  lantern  slides). 

II.  The  Songs  of  Burns.  (In  the  course  of  this  lecture  several 
songs  of  Burns  are  read  by  the  lecturer  and  views  are  shown 
of  the  persons  and  places  concerned  in  the  poems.) 

III.  Sir  Walter  Scott  at  Home  (fully  illustrated  with  new  lantern 

slides). 

IV.  The  Wizard  of  the  North. 
V.     Literary  Edinburgh. 

VI.     Scott's  Poems  and  Romances. 

(  H.  B.  ADAMS,  Chairman. 
Committee:  V  W.  B.  CLARK. 
I  J.  S.  AMES. 


V. 
WASHINGTON  AND  BALTIMORE1 

Your  Excellency,  the  Governor;  your  Honor,  the  Mayor;  Ladies 

and  Gentlemen: 

The  Colonial  Dames  of  America  deserve  to  be  congratu- 
lated this  day  on  the  completion  and  unveiling  of  a  beautiful 
tablet  marking  the  historic  site  of  the  old  Fountain  Inn  on 
Light  Street  or,  as  it  used  to  be  called,  "  Light  Lane," 
where  George  Washington  tarried  on  at  least  three  memor- 
able occasions.  The  first  visit  was  on  May  5,  1775,  when  he 
was  on  his  way  to  Philadelphia  as  a  delegate  to  the  Con- 
tinental Congress,  where  he  was  appointed  to  command  the 
Revolutionary  army  at  Cambridge.  The  second  visit  was 
on  September  18,  1781,  on  his  way  to  Virginia,  to  the  siege 
of  Yorktown.  The  third  visit  was  on  the  I7th  of  April, 
1789,  when  he  was  journeying  northward  to  New  York  to 
be  inaugurated  as  first  President  of  the  United  States. 
These  three  visits  to  Baltimore  by  George  Washington  are 
especially  worthy  of  patriotic  commemoration  because  they 


1  An  address  to  Chapter  I  of  The  Colonial  Dames  of  America 
and  invited  guests,  February  22,  1899,  in  the  parlors  of  the  Carroll- 
t6n  Hotel,  on  the  occasion  of  the  unveiling  of  a  memorial  tablet 
bearing  this  inscription: 

"  This  site  was  formerly  occupied  by  the  Fountain  Inn  where 
General  George  Washington  lodged  upon  the  following  memorable 
occasions:  May  5,  1775,  on  his  journey  to  Philadelphia  as  a  Dele- 
gate from  Virginia  to  the  Second  Continental  Congress;  Septem- 
ber 8,  1781,  on  his  way  to  the  reduction  of  Yorktown;  April  17, 
1789,  when  proceeding,  as  President-elect,  to  his  Inauguration  at 
New  York.  This  tablet  is  erected  by  Chapter  I  of  the  Colonial 
Dames  of  America,  February  22,  1899." 

To  illustrate  in  educational  ways  the  relations  of  George  Wash- 
ington to  Baltimore  was  the  object  of  this  address. 


38  Public  Educational  Work  in  Baltimore.  [576 

represent  not  only  Washington's  personal  relations  to  Bal- 
timore, but  also  three  great  and  decisive  events  in  the  his- 
tory of  our  common  country:  First,  the  beginnings  of  the 
American  Revolution  and  of  our  national  Declaration  of 
Independence.  Second,  the  completion  of  the  American 
Revolution  by  Washington's  capture  of  the  British  army  in 
Virginia.  Third,  the  establishment  of  a  permanent  union  of 
these  United  States  and  by  the  unanimous  choice  of  George 
Washington  as  our  first  President  First  in  war,  first  in 
peace,  and  with  special  significance  on  this  memorial  day, 
first  in  the  hearts  of  his  countrywomen. 

It  is  impossible  in  the  brief  space  assigned  me  to  speak 
in  detail  of  the  circumstances  attending  the  three  memorial 
visits  of  Washington  to  Baltimore.  But  I  will  briefly  de- 
scribe the  most  famous  of  all.  Late  in  the  afternoon  of  the 
1 7th  of  April,  1789,  General  Washington,  coming  by  way 
of  Alexandria,  Georgetown  and  Bladensburg  in  three  days, 
in  his  own  carriage,  approached  the  town  of  Baltimore.  A 
cavalcade  of  finely  mounted  horsemen  rode  forth  from  this 
hospitable  city  to  meet  the  coming  chief  of  the  nation. 
They  escorted  him  into  town  amid  the  general  enthusiasm 
of  citizens  and  small  boys,  who  lined  the  streets  on  either 
hand.  Salvos  of  artillery  greeted  the  civic  hero.  Joy  and 
rejoicing  filled  the  heart  of  Baltimore.  Washington  was 
taken  to  Grant's  Tavern,  or  the  old  Fountain  Inn,  upon  the 
site  of  the  present  Carrollton  Hotel.  A  committee  of  citi- 
zens, headed  by  James  McHenry,  afterwards  Washington's 
Secretary  of  War  in  his  second  administration,  promptly 
appeared  upon  the  scene  and  made  a  speech  of  welcome. 

In  reply,  Washington  said :  "  Gentlemen,  the  tokens  of 
regard  and  affection  which  I  have  often  received  from  the 
citizens  of  this  town  were  always  acceptable,  because  I  be- 
lieved them  always  sincere.  Be  pleased  to  receive  my  best 
acknowledgments  for  the  renewal  of  them  on  the  present 
occasion.  If  the  affectionate  partiality  of  my  fellow-citizens 
has  prompted  them  to  ascribe  greater  effects  to  my  conduct 
and  character  than  were  justly  due,  I  trust  the  indulgent 


577]  Public  Educational  Courses,  1899-1900.  39 

sentiment  on  their  part  will  not  produce  any  presumption 
on  mine." 

Other  visits  there  certainly  were.  Every  time  Washing- 
ton went  to  Philadelphia  or  northwards  he  must  have 
passed  through  Baltimore.  For  example,  in  1798,  Nov. 
7,  he  is  known  to  have  stopped  at  this  Fountain  Inn  when 
on  his  way  to  Trenton  to  reorganize  the  American  army. 
Danger  had  arisen  of  a  war  with  France,  then  endeavoring 
to  coerce  America  into  a  war  with  England.  But  the  danger 
soon  died  away  and  that  visit  of  Washington  to  Baltimore 
is  of  minor  interest.  Old  soldiers  were,  however,  recruiting 
their  companies  afresh.  The  Baltimore  Independent  Blues, 
ready  to  be  reviewed,  were  drawn  up  on  Baltimore  Street, 
then  Market  Street,  and  down  the  line,  from  Light  Street 
corner  to  South  Street,  walked  Ex-President  Washington 
in  civilian  dress.  The  soldiers  afterwards  marched  down 
Light  Street  in  compliment  to  General  Washington,  who 
stood  on  the  front  steps  of  the  old  hotel. 

It  is,  therefore,  by  singular  historical  fitness  that  this 
memorial  tablet  has  been  erected  on  the  Light-Street  side 
of  the  Carrollton  Hotel,  for,  on  the  west  side,  was  the 
original  entrance  to  Fountain  Inn.  On  that  side  stood 
General  Washington,  as  on  all  other  occasions  when  he  was 
especially  honored  and  escorted  to  his  lodgings  by  the 
soldiers  and  populace  of  this  city.  And  there,  too,  in  1824, 
stood  the  Marquis  de  la  Fayette  when  escorted  to  his  hotel 
and  saluted  by  the  National  Guards  and  the  De  Kalb 
Cadets. 

Many  have  been  the  stirring  events  and  social  scenes  on 
this  historic  spot,  from  the  time  of  the  American  Revolution 
to  the  close  of  the  i8th  century,  from  the  War  of  1812  down 
to  our  own  times.  The  politics  and  parties  of  Baltimore 
and  Maryland  have  been  and  still  are  shaped  under  the 
shelter  of  this  historic  roof-tree.  In  the  inner  courtyard 
of  the  Fountain  Inn  there  once  grew  a  shady  tree  under 
which  Washington  undoubtedly  stood,  as  he  did  under  the 
famous  elm,  when  he  took  command  of  the  troops  at  Cam- 


40  Public  Educational  Work  in  Baltimore.  [578 

bridge.  But  the  Cambridge  elm  is  fast  falling  to  decay  and 
soon  it  will  be  only  a  memory  like  that  of  the  ancient  tree 
in  the  Fountain  Inn  courtyard,  which  survives  only  in  a 
print,  which  Mr.  Brooks  has  shown  you. 

After  all,  old  trees  and  oM  houses  do  not  compare  with 
the  historic  spirit  in  living  people  who  keep  alive  the  events 
which  the  old  trees  and  the  old  houses  once  helped  to 
commemorate.  More  enduring  than  the  Fountain  Inn  will 
be  that  beautiful  tablet  now  facing  the  western  sun.  That 
tablet  will  recall  to  every  Baltimore  beholder  and  to  the 
stranger  within  your  gates  the  living  presence  of  George 
Washington,  the  immortal  guest-friend  of  Baltimore.  He 
will  be  welcomed  anew  by  every  visitor  who  drives  or  walks 
through  Light  Street,  by  every  citizen  and  schoolboy  who 
sees  your  artistic  memorial.  "  The  living,  the  living,  he 
shall  praise  thee,  as  I  do  this  day"  (Isaiah  38:  19). 

Visitors  to  Montreal  or  Quebec,  to  London,  Paris,  Bos- 
ton, Philadelphia,  or  any  historic  city,  are  profoundly  im- 
pressed by  these  street  reminders  of  the  illustrious  dead. 
It  is  they,  the  immortals,  who  really  live  in  the  conscious- 
ness of  thoughtful  citizens,  the  men  and  women  of  to-day. 
The  spirits  of  the  past  have  the  perpetual  freedom  of  historic 
cities.  The  fathers  live  on  in  the  sons  and  daughters  who 
realize  the  significance  of  Baltimore's  history.  True  and 
loyal  souls,  men  and  women  of  light  and  leading,  constitute 
this  modern  town. 

Your  Honor,  the  Mayor,  Baltimore  is  indeed  great  in 
population,  extensive  in  territory,  flourishing  in  business, 
distinguished  in  art  and  institutions,  but  its  noblest  inherit- 
ance, its  eternal  monument,  is  the  stately  column  erected 
by  the  State  of  Maryland  to  the  memory  of  George  Wash- 
ington. There  it  stands  on  our  Capitoline  Hill,  the  historic 
acropolis  of  Baltimore,  the  most  beautiful  column  in  this 
country,  a  conspicuous  landmark  for  the  whole  region 
roundabout,  and  at  the  same  time  viewed  and  reviewed  by 
passing  citizens  every  day  of  their  lives.  Its  inscriptions 
form  a  compendium  of  our  Revolutionary  history,  an  open 


579]  Washington  and  Baltimore.  41 

record  known  to  all  men,  read  and  re-read  this  very  day  by 
children  from  the  public  schools.  The  Washington  Monu- 
ment has  determined  the  development  of  this  city,  the  up- 
ward tendency  of  its  growth  and  institutional  life.  But  for 
that  magnificent  work  of  historic  art,  that  memorial  of 
George  Washington  by  the  State  of  Maryland,  Baltimore 
would  never  have  had  its  Mount  Vernon  Place,  its  Peabody 
Institute,  its  Johns  Hopkins  University. 

Let  us,  therefore,  fellow-citizens,  honor  the  deeds  of  the 
fathers  of  this  American  republic  and  cherish  their  memo- 
ries^ For  they  founded  states  and  cities.  They  fought  bat- 
tles for  liberty  and  independence.  They  made  their  country 
truly  great  and  free.  Even  this  American  continent  can- 
not limit  their  fame.  "  The  whole  earth,"  said  Pericles,  "  is 
the  monument  of  illustrious  men." 

In  the  old  English  city  of  Chester  there  is  on  a  certain 
street  a  house-motto  which  impressed  me  when  I  first  be- 
held it.  The  motto  reads,  ".God's  Providence  is  Mine 
Inheritance."  We  ought  to  feel  that  the  memory  of  George 
Washington  is  the  most  precious  historic  legacy  of  this 
Monumental  City.  Battle  Monument  does  not  compare 
with  the  Washington  Monument  in  educational  value. 
Here  in  Baltimore,  in  December,  1776,  George  Washington 
received  his  power  as  Commander-in-Chief.  In  our  State 
Capitol  at  Annapolis  he  resigned  his  commission  and  be- 
came once  more  a  private  citizen  and  a  man  of  peace. 

Grandest  of  all  his  peaceful  projects  was  that  of  a  National 
University,  based  upon  individual  endowment.  That  pro- 
ject may  be  found  in  many  of  his  writings,  but  the  clearest 
and  strongest  statement  of  it  occurs  in  his  last  will  and 
testament.  There  he  employed  the  following  significant 
language:  "It  has  been  my -ardent  wish  to  see  a  plan 
devised,  on  a  liberal  scale,  which  would  have  a  tendency  to 
spread  systematic  ideas  through  all  parts  of  this  rising 
empire,  thereby  to  do  away  local  attachments  and  State 
prejudices,  as  far  as  the  nature  of  things  would,  or  indeed 
ought  to  admit,  from  our  national  councils.  Looking 


42  Public  Educational  Work  in  Baltimore.  [580 

anxiously  forward  to  the  accomplishment  of  so  desirable  an 
object  as  this  is,  in  my  estimation,  my  mind  has  not  been 
able  to  contemplate  any  plan  more  likely  to  effect  the 
measure  than  the  establishment  of  a  University  in  a  central 
part  of  the  United  States,  to  which  the  youths  of  fortune 
and  talents  from  all  parts  thereof  may  be  sent  for  the  com- 
pletion of  their  education,  in  all  branches  of  polite  literature, 
in  arts  and  sciences,  in  acquiring  knowledge  in  the  princi- 
ples of  politics  and  good  government,  and,  as  a  matter  of 
infinite  importance  in  my  judgment,  by  associating  with 
each  other,  and  forming  friendships  in  juvenile  years,  be 
enabled  to  free  themselves  in  a  proper  degree  from  those 
local  prejudices  and  habitual  jealousies  which  have  just 
been  mentioned,  and  which,  when  carried  to  excess,  are 
never-failing  sources  of  disquietude  to  the  public  mind,  and 
pregnant  of  mischievous  consequences  to  this  country. 
Under  these  impressions,  so  fully  dilated,  I  give  and  be- 
queath, in  perpetuity,  the  fifty  shares  which  I  hold  in  the 
Potomac  Company  .  .  .  towards  the  endowment  of  a  uni- 
versity." 

Was  it  not  a  remarkable  fact  that  the  two  great  rivers  of 
Virginia,  the  James  and  the  Potomac,  should  have  been  the 
principal  economic  forces  in  the  development  of  Washing- 
ton's educational  hopes  for  Virginia  and  his  country?  His 
stock  in  the  James  River  Navigation  Company  became  a 
permanent  source  of  revenue  for  Washington  College,  now 
Washington  and  Lee  University,  where  recently  President 
Wilson  consciously  and  avowedly  revived  the  Old  Williams- 
burg  ideal  of  a  combined  school  of  law  and  history,  politics 
and  economics.  Washington's  stock  in  the  Potomac  Navi- 
gation Company  became  the  historic  source  for  his  larger 
idea  of  a  national  university.  The  Baltimore  and  Ohio 
Railroad,  which  succeeded  the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal 
and  the  Potomac  Company  as  a  trade-route  between  the 
West  and  the  Atlantic  seaboard,  proved  for  many  years  the 
chief  source  of  revenue  for  the  Johns  Hopkins  University, 
itself  national  in  spirit,  though  not  in  name. 


Washington  and  Baltimore.  43 

Whatever  may  be  the  fate  of  corporations,  Washington's 
grand  idea  of  a  truly  national  university  will  live  on  in 
Baltimore  and  find  ultimately  even  larger  realization  in  the 
nation's  capital.  To  this  end  all  existing  colleges  and  uni- 
versities will  in  spite  of  themselves  contribute.  State  inter- 
ests and  sectional  prejudice  will  yield  to  larger  and  richer 
opportunities  for  the  study  of  history,  politics,  economics, 
social  science  and  diplomacy — opportunities  already  exist- 
ing in  the  city  of  Washington.  A  national  government 
which  expends  over  three  million  dollars  per  annum  for 
scientific  purposes  is,  consciously  or  unconsciously,  promot- 
ing George  Washington's  noble  project  for  the  highest  edu- 
cation of  the  American  people.  Private  and  ill-considered 
schemes  may  fail,  but  State  and  national  ideas  in  university 
education  must  ultimately  combine  and  prevail  in  this  fed- 
eral Republic.  "  He  that  believeth,  doth  not  make  haste." 

Washington's  idea  of  a  National  University  in  the  city 
which  bears  his  name  was  never  so  full  of  life  as  it  is  to-day. 
But  let  us  remember  that,  as  Baltimore  anticipated1  the 
Federal  City  by  many  years  in  the  completion  of  a  noble 


1  It  is  a  curious  fact  that  Baltimore  anticipated  the  Federal  City 
in  founding  a  "  Washington  University."  In  the  spring  of  1827, 
Washington  College,  of  Washington,  Pennsylvania,  authorized  the 
institution  in  Baltimore  of  the  "  Washington  Medical  College." 
It  got  a  charter  from  the  Maryland  Legislature  in  1832  and  in  1839 
became  legally  known  as  the  "  Washington  University  of  Balti- 
more." It  occupied  on  North  Broadway  new  buildings  costing 
$40,000,  now  occupied  by  the  Church  Home  and  Infirmary. 
"  Washington  University  "  collapsed  in  1851  and  its  buildings  were 
sold  for  debt.  After  the  civil  war,  the  old  Washington  University 
Medical  School  was  revived  by  the  Legislature  in  1867.  The  cata- 
logue of  1868  said  that  "  one  student  from  each  Congressional 
district  of  the  late  slave-holding  States  is  received  as  a  beneficiary 
in  Washington  University,  precedence  being  given  to  wounded 
and  disabled  soldiers."  Lectures  were  held  in  the  buildings  now 
occupied  by  the  City  Hospital  and  by  the  College  of  Physicians  and 
Surgeons,  with  which  college  "Washington  University"  was 
merged  in  1877.  See  Dr.  Bernard  C.  Steiner's  "  History  of  Edu- 
cation in  Maryland "  (Bureau  of  Education,  1894),  pp.  286-291,  a 
work  which  originated  in  the  above  curious  bit  of  educational 
history  narrated  by  his  father. 


44  Public  Educational  Work  in  Baltimore.  [582 

monument  to  George  Washington,  so  we  have  anticipated 
Congress  in  establishing,  according  to  Washington's  liberal 
plan,  "  a  university  in  a  central  part  of  the  United  States," 
to  which  young  men  from  all  parts  of  our  common  country 
are  sent  for  the  completion  of  their  education. 

The  22d  of  February  is  a  fitting  day  for  this  historic  com- 
memoration. The  birthday  of  George  Washington  marks 
a  national  as  well  as  a  municipal  holiday.  It  is  also  the 
anniversary  of  the  inauguration  of  the  Johns  Hopkins.  If 
the  Father  of  his  Country  could  have  seen  with  his  own 
eyes  the  establishment  of  a  university  in  Baltimore,  midway 
between  the  North  and  the  South,  he  would  have  rejoiced, 
as  we  do  this  day,  in  the  providence  of  God  in  human  his- 
tory. God's  providence  is  indeed  our  inheritance.  Let  us 
accept  in  the  spirit  of  the  Psalmist:  "  Be  ye  sure  that  the 
Lord  he  is  God;  it  is  he  that  hath  made  us,  and  not  we 
ourselves." 

To  the  Colonial  Dames  of  America  I  would  say:  "  Be  not 
weary  in  well-doing";  revive  and  quicken  here  the  national 
spirit  of  George  Washington  in  matters  pertaining  to  his- 
tory and  education.  Devise  a  plan  on  a  liberal  scale  which 
shall  "  have  a  tendency  to  spread  systematic  ideas  through 
all  parts  of  this  rising  empire."  These  are  not  my  words, 
but  those  of  the  greatest  American.  I  would  suggest 
that  you  establish  a  Maryland  Scholarship  or  Fellow- 
ship in  American  History,  to  be  awarded  annually  to  the 
best  Maryland  graduate  student  in  that  department  of  the 
Johns  Hopkins  University.  Encourage  him  on  this  Balti- 
more and  Maryland  vantage-ground  to  contribute  some 
lasting  memorial  as  did  your  fathers  before  you  when  they 
erected  the  Washington  Monument.  Continue  to  mark  the 
historic  sites  of  this  Monumental  City.  Collect  all  the 
books  and  historic  prints  ever  published  in  Baltimore  and 
Maryland.  But  above  all  things,  discover  a  talented  Mary- 
land college  graduate,  possibly  one  already  a  Doctor  of 
Philosophy,  and  develop  him  into  an  American  historian. 

I  have  lately  been  much  interested  in  a  published  inter- 


583]  Washington  and  Baltimore.  45 

view  with  President  Schurman,  of  Cornell  University,  who 
went  out  to  the  Philippine  Islands  as  chairman  of  our  gov- 
ernment commission  of  five  men,  including  Admiral  Dewey, 
Major-General  Otis,  Colonel  Charles  Denby  (our  Ex-Min- 
ister  to  China),  and  Professor  Worcester,  of  the  University 
of  Michigan,  author  of  a  book  on  "  The  Philippine  Islands 
and  their  People."  Jacob  Gould  Schurfnan  was  originally 
a  poor  boy,  born  in  Prince  Edward's  Island  in  1854.  He 
did  not  begin  to  seek  a  higher  education  until  he  was  six- 
teen years  of  age.  Before  that  he  had  been  a  clerk  in  a 
country  store,  first  on  $30  and  afterwards  on  $60  a  year. 
He  went  to  the  Prince  of  Wales  College  situated  at 
Charlotte  Town  and  there,  in  open  competition  with  boys 
from  the  entire  island,  won  a  $60  scholarship.  That  paltry 
stipend,  the  equivalent  of  his  former  salary  as  a  clerk,  was 
Schurman's  first  positive  encouragement  in  the  higher  edu- 
cational life.  From  the  Prince  of  Wales  College,  in  Prince 
Edward's  Island,  young  Schurman  went  next  to  Acadia 
College  in  Nova  Scotia  and  there  won  a  $500  scholarship, 
tenable  for  three  years  in  London  University.  The  ques- 
tions were  sent  out  from  England  and  were  distributed  by 
the  Governor-General  to  all  the  colleges  in  Canada.  That 
poor  boy  from  Prince  Edward's  Island  won  the  noble  prize 
which  took  him  across  the  sea.  He  studied  in  London  and 
Edinburgh  and  there  after  three  years  competed  for  the 
Hibbard  Travelling  Fellowship,  yielding  $2000  a  year  for 
philosophical  study  anywhere  on  the  continent  of  Europe. 
In  the  face  of  competition  from  Oxford,  Cambridge  and  the 
United  Kingdom,  Schurman  won  the  splendid  honor.  He 
finished  his  liberal  education  in  Heidelberg  and  Berlin. 
There  he  met  the  American  Minister,  Hon.  Andrew  D. 
White,  who  afterwards  recommended  him  for  the  chair  in 
philosophy  at  Cornell  University,  of  which  Dr.  Schurman  is 
now  president. 

Does  any  one  believe  for  one  moment  that  this  poor 
Canadian  boy  would  now  be  one  of  the  most  scholarly 
college  presidents  in  the  United  States  and  at  the  same  time 


46  Public  Educational  Work  in  Baltimore.  [584 

the  head  of  a  most  important  American  commission  but 
for  those  early  academic  rewards  and  scholarships?  God's 
providence  was  certainly  his  inheritance..  I  do  not  ask  you 
to  establish  another  scholarship  or  fellowship  for  a  Canadian 
or  a  New  Englander  at  the  Johns  Hopkins  University.  I 
am  simply  illustrating  the  English  system  of  prize  scholar- 
ships by  recent  noteworthy  results,  and  I  ask  you,  the 
Colonial  Dames  of  America,  to  found  in  Baltimore,  as 
your  Washington  Monument,  a  Maryland  Fellowship  of 
American  History,  to  be  awarded  annually  to  the  best  grad- 
uate student  from  this  State.  My  plea  is  for  a  local,  acad- 
emic foundation,  not  another  marble  column  or  another 
bronze  statue,  but  a  permanent  fund  for  the  extension  of 
Maryland's  historical  influence  throughout  the  whole 
country  and  for  the  perpetuation  of  the  national  spirit  of 
George  Washington,  which  we  have  this  day  commemo- 
rated. 

Yesterday  I  had  the  pleasure  of  accompanying  a  party  of 
30  Hopkins  college  boys,  nearly  all  of  them  Baltimoreans, 
on  a  visit  to  Washington  to  see  the  New  Congressional 
Library  and  Congress  itself  in  session.  Most  interesting 
were  the  living  men  and  those  artistic  memorials  of  our 
nation's  history,  those  reminders  of  the  world's  civilization; 
but,  as  we  came  out  from  those  stately  halls,  we  saw  tower- 
ing above  all  the  government  buildings  that  magnificent 
obelisk  dedicated  to  the  one  man  Washington.  I  thought 
and  reminded  the  boys  from  Baltimore:  "How  much 
greater  even  than  great  men  are  the  influences  which  pro- 
ceed from  their  lives."  Emerson  has  said  that  "  Institutions 
are  the  lengthened  shadows  of  great  men  " ;  but  are  not 
cities  like  Baltimore  and  Washington,  are  not  institutions 
of  law,  education,  and  religion  more  than  mere  shadows  of 
men?  Indeed,  they  are  in  one  sense  the  projected  souls  of 
the  illustrious  dead.  They  are,  like  all  history,  the  glorious 
resurrection  of  the  deathless  past,  the  larger  life  of  the 
present,  the  advancing  sunlight  of  an  immortal  future. 

May  your  Washington  Monument  be  a  creation  of  the 


585]  Washington  and  Baltimore.  47 

spirit,  the  liberation  of  a  soul,  and  not  a  work  of  mere 
stone  or  brass.  May  you,  Colonial  Dames  of  America,  be 
able  to  say  with  the  poet  Horace: 

I've  reared  a  monument,  my  own, 

More  durable  than  brass, 
Yea,  kingly  pyramids  of  stone 

In  height  it  doth  surpass. 

Rain  shall  not  sap,  nor  driving  blast 

Disturb  its  settled  base, 
Nor  countless  ages  rolling  past 

Its  symmetry  deface. 

I  shall  not  wholly  die.     Some  part, 

Nor  that  a  little,  shall 
Escape  the  dark  destroyer's  dart, 

And  his  grim  festival. 

Let  us  turn  now,  in  conclusion,  from  the  noble  words  of 
the  Roman  poet  to  the  aspiring  sentiments  of  an  American 
woman,  in  her  ode  to  the  Washington  Monument,  pub- 
lished in  Scribner's  Magazine,  February,  1899: 

Oh,  pure,  white  shaft  upspringing  to  the  light 

With  one  grand  leap  of  heavenward-reaching  might, 

Calmly  against  the  blue  for  evermore 

Lift  thou  the  changeless  type  of  souls  that  soar 

Above  the  common  dust  of  sordid  strife 

Into  the  radiant  ether  of  a  life 

Shepherded  by  the  vastness  of  eternity! 

A  hero's  quickening  spirit  lifteth  thee 

Unto  the  skies  that  claim  thee  for  their  own: 

In  those  vast  fields  of  light,  sublime,  alone, 

High  commune  holdest  thou  with  the  young  day, 

With  sunset's  glowing  heart  ere  twilight  gray 

Hath  stilled  its  throbbing  fires,  and  with  dim  night 

That  folds  thee  softly  in  the  silver  light 

Of  many  a  dreaming  moon.     In  majesty 

Serene,  like  the  great  name  enshrined  in  thee, 

Thou  dost  defy  the  all-destroying  years. 

Smite  with  thy  still  rebuke  our  craven  fears! 

Point  us  forever  to  the  highest  height, 

And  in  our  Nation's  peril-hours  shine  white 

With  the  mute  witness  to  the  undying  power 

Of  the  high  soul  that  lives  above  the  hour! 


INDEX  TO  THE  SEVENTEENTH  VOLUME 


OF 


JOHNS  HOPKINS  UNIVERSITY  STUDIES 


IN 


HISTORICAL  AND  POLITICAL  SCIENCE 


Adams,  Prof.  H.  B.,  on  "  Pub- 
lic Educational  Work  in  Bal- 
timore," 545-585;  popular  lec- 
tures of,  547,  549,  552,  556-557. 

Adams,  Pres.  John  Quincy, 
opens  work  on  C.  &  O.  Canal, 

513-514. 

Alexander,  Thomas  S.,  224. 
American  (Baltimore),   159,  244, 

257- 

American  Party.  See  "  Know- 
Nothing  Party." 

"  American    System,"   459,    460, 

476,  477- 

Ames,  Prof.  Joseph  S.,  public 
lectures  of,  566-567,  570. 

Amsterdam,  Labadists  in,  293- 
294. 

Andrews,  Charles  M.,  in  Univ. 
Extension  work,  549. 

Andrews,  Dr.  E.  A.,  public  lec- 
tures of,  571. 

Anti-slavery  agitation,  325,  369- 

370,  375,  379- 

Asbury,  Francis,  in  North  Caro- 
lina, 373. 

Ayres,  P.  W.,  popular  lecture 
of,  550. 

B 

Baltimore,  growth  in  commer- 
cial importance,  12-13;  early 
effort  for  bank,  17-19;  estab- 
lishment of  "  Bank  of  Mary- 


land," 19-20;  condition  of 
banks  in  1830,  76;  clearing- 
house, 123-125;  relation  to 
trade-routes,  519-522;  visits  of 
George  Washington  to,  575- 
585;  public  educational  work 
in,  see  "  Public  Education." 

Baltimore  &  Ohio  Railroad, 
organized  in  opposition  to 
C.  &  O.  Canal,  522-523;  legal 
contests  with  canal,  525-529. 

Banking  (in  Maryland),  1-144; 
first  issues  paper  money,  n; 
subsequent  issues  and 
amounts,  11-12;  beginning  of 
state  banks,  14;  influence  of 
Scotch  system,  14-16;  large 
capital  early  banks,  16;  sta- 
tistics of  banks,  25,  43,  78,  102, 
112,  113,  115-120,  127,  129,  137- 
139;  legal  basis,  25-26;  fea- 
tures and  practice,  30-39,  65- 
73,  80,  101-104;  attempt  to  pre- 
vent increase,  42;  expansion, 
40-43,  109-116;  taxation,  44-48, 
87-88;  industrial  experiments, 
44-48;  suspension  of  1814,  54; 

%  crisis  of  "1818,  54-56;  failures, 
58-65;  taxation  of  notes,  72; 
crises  of  1825  and  1828,  73-75; 
condition  in  1830,76;  state  sub- 
scriptions to  capital,  81;  cen- 
tral state  bank,  81-85;  regula- 
tion of  banks,  85-87,  98,  105- 
106,  109,  114-115,  116-119,  127- 
128,  130-132,  133-135;  taxation 


50 


Index 


[588 


of  stocks,  87-88;  crisis  of  1834, 
88-95;  crisis  of  1837,  95-98,  104- 
107,  107-108;  crisis  of  1839,  99- 
101,  104-107,  107-108;  savings 
banks,  110-113;  general  bank- 
ing law,  116-119;  crisis  of  1857, 
119-123;  relation  of  industries 
to  banking,  132-133;  bibliog- 
raphy, 141-144. 

Bankruptcies,  56,  135. 

Banks,  origin  in  America,  10-11; 
beginnings  state  banks,  14; 
branch  banks  in  Maryland,  15- 
17;  table  of  in  Maryland  in 
1810,  25;  hostility  to  in  Mary- 
land, 44. 

Bank  of  Baltimore,  capital,  16; 
chartered,  20-21;  charter  of,  26- 
29;  dividends,  39;  value  of 
stock,  39,  53;  condition  in 
1830,  76;  charter  extended,  86. 

Bank  of  Caroline,  43,  58,  59. 

Bank  of  Columbia,  20. 

Bank  of  Maryland,  paid-up  capi- 
tal, 16;  chartered,  19-20;  char- 
.acter  of  charter,  29-30;  divi- 
dends, 39;  stock  quotations, 
53;  failure,  81,  89-95. 

Bank  of  North  America,  14. 

Bank  of  United  States  (first), 
14,  16,  20,  134;  (second),  50, 
54-55,  73,  74,  77,  82,  88-89,  99 

Baptists,  relations  with  slavery, 
377-380. 

Bartol,  fudge  James  L.,  248. 

:Bassett,  John  Spencer,  on 
"  Slavery  in  State  of  North 
Carolina,"  321-427. 

Battle,  T.  W.,  392. 

Bayard,  Petrus  (or  Bayaert), 
306-307,  308. 

Beecher,  Henry  Ward,  quoted, 
207. 

Bedini  (Papal  legate),  160-161, 
203. 

Bernard,  Gen.  S.,  survey  of  C.  & 
O.  Canal  route,  497-499,  503. 

Berry,  J.   Summerfield,  234. 

"  Bettering  Notes,"  84. 

Blackmar,  F.  W.,  public  lecture, 
549- 

"  Bohemia  Manor,"  277-278,  298, 
299,  3io,  311-312. 

Bownas,  Samuel,  quoted,  286- 
287. 


Brackett,  Dr.  Jeffrey  R.,  public 
lectures,  571-572. 

Bragg,  Fellow,  361. 

Briggs,  Isaac,  survey  of  C.  &  O. 
Canal,  466,  468. 

Brooks,  Henry  P.,  contests  elec- 
tion, 233-234. 

Brooks,  Prof.  W.  K.,  popular 
lecture  of,  548. 

Brown,  George  William,  185- 
186,  224,  256-257. 

Brownson's  Review,  203-204,  204- 
205  (note). 

Brune,  F.  W.,  Jr.,  224. 

Bryan,  Alfred  Cookman,  on 
"  State  Banking  in  Mary- 
land," 1-144. 

Bryan  -vs.  Wadsworth,  347-348. 

Buchanan,  James,  209-210. 

Butler,  Dr.  Nicholas  Murray, 
public  lecture  of,  574. 


Calhoun,  John  C.,  favors  inter- 
nal improvements,  459-460, 
500. 

Cameron,  Paul  C.,  quoted,  391. 

Campbell,  J.  Mason,  224. 

Canton  Workingmen's  Institute, 
546-548. 

Capers,  Bishop,  quoted,  374,  375- 
376. 

Capital  of  Maryland  banks,  16, 
50,  52,  58,  64,  70,  76-8i,  107, 
109-114,  117,  120,  126,  129,  139. 

Caruthers,  Dr.  Eli  W.,  quoted, 
368,  407-408. 

"  Cash  Accounts,"  description 
of,  37-38. 

Catholics,  Know-Nothmg  op- 
position to,  155-156,  160-161, 
165,  167-168,  169-170,  177-178, 
203,  215,  237-238,  261,  265; 
in  Maryland,  197-201,  203-206; 
in  United  States,  202;  allegi- 
ance to  Pope,  203-205. 

Centreville  Bank,  43,  70. 

Certificates  (Teachers'  Course), 
565,  568. 

Charles,  John,  373. 

"  Charlottesburg,"   433-434- 

Chavis,  Rev.  John,  359,  389-392. 

Chesapeake  Bank  of  Baltimore, 
78,  97,  107. 


589] 


Index 


51 


Chesapeake  and  Delaware  Canal, 

445-449- 

Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal, 
431-537;  development  of  trade- 
route,  433-441;  Braddock's  ex- 
pedition opens  road,  434-436; 
Washington  and  the  Potomac 
Company,  436-440;  United 
States  Government  and  inter- 
nal improvements,  443-461 ; 
independent  movement  for 
canal,  463-481 ;  origin  of  canal 
project,  463-464;  early  survey 
and  location,  464-468;  esti- 
mates of  cost,  469-470,  475- 
476,  503,  505-507;  action  of 
state  and  national  govern- 
ments, 470-474,  483-489;  con- 
vention at  Washington  (1823), 
472-481 ;  charter  legislation, 
483-489;  Federal  Government 
takes  control,  491-496;  United 
States  Government  survey, 
497-5O4;  convention  at  Wash- 
ington (1826),  506-507;  canal 
as  national  enterprise,  509-517; 
breaking  of  ground,  512-514; 
imports  laborers,  514-516;  op- 
position of  railroads,  522-523, 
525-529;  struggle  for  exist- 
ence, 531-534;  completed  to 
Cumberland,  534;  subsequent 
history,  535*537;  receivers  ap- 
pointed, 536. 

Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal 
Convention  (in  Washington), 
1823,  472-481;  1826,  506-507. 

Circulation  of  Maryland  banks, 
50,  52,  57,  74,  75,  76,  102,  115, 

I2O,    126,    129,    137,    139. 

Citizens'  Bank  of  Baltimore,  78, 
97,  104- 

City  Bank  of  Baltimore,  42,  53, 
60,  61-64. 

City  Reform  Association,  or- 
ganized, 242. 

Clark,  Prof.  H.  S.,  public  lec- 
ture, 553. 

Clarke,  Dr.  Samuel  F.,  public 
lecture,  547. 

Claude,  Dennis,  248. 

Clipper  (Baltimore),  157,  162, 
172,  216,  240,  257. 

Clubs  (political),  187-188,  214- 
215- 


Coffin,  Levi,  382-383. 

Coke,  Dr.,  opposition  to  slavery, 
369- 

Collins,  Jpsiah,  392. 

Commercial  and  Farmers'  Bank 
of  Baltimore,  chartered,  41; 
industrial  investments,  47; 
stock  quotations,  53;  reduc- 
tion stock,  64;  condition 
(1830),  76;  charter  extended, 
86,  108. 

Commercial  Bank  of  Baltimore, 

78-79- 

Commercial  Bank  of  Milling- 
ton,  78,  94-95,  106. 

Conococheague  Bank,  43,  45,  58. 

"  Consolidated   Bank,"  69. 

Constitutional  Convention 

(Maryland),  movement  for, 
238-240. 

Constitutional  Union  Party, 
258-259. 

Cook,  Prof.  Albert  S.,  public 
lecture,  547. 

Crisis  of  1818,  54-56;  1825-28, 
73-75;  1834,  88-95;  1837,  95-98, 
104-107,  107-108;  1839,  99-101, 
104-107,  107-108;  1857,  119-123. 

Cross,  Rev.  A.  B.,  237-238. 

Cumberland  Bank  of  Allegany, 
43-  45-  58,  78,  113- 

Cumberland  City  Bank,  122. 

"  Cumberland  Road  Bill,"  444- 
445.  491-492. 

Cunningham,  Dr.  William,  pub- 
lic lectures  of,  557. 

D 

Danckers,  Joseph,  301-307. 

Danckers,  Jasper,  308. 

Davis,  Henry  Winter,  politics, 
170-171;  election  contested, 
233-234;  campaign  1859,  244- 
245;  censured  by  legislature 
(1860),  251-253. 

De  Bow's  Magazine,  quoted,  399- 
401. 

Deposits,  76,  102,  115,  120,  126, 
129,  137,  139;  payment  of  in- 
terest on,  16,  38,  119,  135. 

Dick,  Robert  P.,  417. 

Dickinson,  William,  348. 

Discounts,  early  Maryland  laws 
and  customs,  36-37;  of  Mary- 
land banks,  55,  67,  70-71,  74- 


52 


Index 


[590 


75,  76,  99,   101,   102,  103,   114, 

119,   I2O,   126,   128,   138. 

Dittleback,      Peter,      295.      See 
"  Verval  en  Val   Labadisten." 
Donelson,       Andrew      Jackson, 
nominated   for   Vice-presiden- 
cy, 179- 
Druid  Hill   Park,  256-257,  259. 


Eastern  Bank  of  Baltimore,  78, 
79,  no. 

Education,  Maryland  banks 
taxed  for,  46,  48,  64,  87,  119, 
130,  132. 

Eliot,  John,  meets  Labadist 
commissioners,  307. 

Elkton  Bank,  chartered,  51 ;  ob- 
jects, 42-43;  closed,  58,  59-60; 
state  subscription  to  stock,  70. 

Elliott,  A.  Marshall,  public  lec- 
ture, 552. 

Emancipation  (North  Carolina), 
345-350. 

Empire  Club  (Baltimore),  214. 

English  Literature  (Teachers' 
Course),  573-574- 

English  travelers  in  United 
States,  197  (note). 

Evans,  Henry,  founds  Metho- 
dist church  at  Fayetteville, 
373-375- 


Fassig,  Dr.  Oliver  L.,  public 
lectures,  566,  569-570. 

Farmers  and  Merchants  Bank 
of  Baltimore,  chartered,  41; 
stock  quotations,  53;  condi- 
tion (1830),  76;  charter  ex- 
tended, 86;  capital  reduced, 
107;  state  interest  in,  108. 

Farmers  and  Mechanics  Bank 
(Frederick  Co.),  47. 

Farmers  and  Millers  Bank  (Ha- 
gerstown),  78,  106-107. 

Farmers  and  Planters  Bank 
(Baltimore),  78,  97,  107. 

Farmers  Bank  of  Maryland, 
capital,  16;  payment  inter- 
est on  deposits,  16;  chartered, 
23-24;  directors,  35-36;  char- 
ter extended,  47. 


Fees  (Teachers'  Course),  558, 
568. 

Fell's  Point  Bank,  113,  130. 

Fillimore,  Millard,  candidate  for 
presidency,  179,  210,  213. 

"  Floating  School  "  (Baltimore), 
259- 

Foreigners  in  United  States, 
190-197. 

Forney,   Mr.,    quoted,  416. 

"  Fountain  Inn "  (Baltimore), 
576-578. 

Franklin  Bank  of  Baltimore,  41, 
53,  59,  76,  80,  86. 

Freeman,  Capt.  John,  378. 

Freeman,   Ralph,  380. 

Freeman's  Journal,  204-205. 

Fremont,  John  C,  209. 

Free  Negroes  (North  Carolina), 
350-362;  restrictions,  35O-3535 
legal  status,  353-354;  suffrage, 
354-358;  action  State  Cons. 
Conv.  (1835),  355-358;  number 
and  life,  358-361 ;  sexual  rela- 
tions between  races,  362. 

Free  Soil  Party,  164,  172  (note). 

Frederick  County  Bank,  43,  47, 
97-  107. 

Fredericktown  Savings  Institu- 
tion, 112,  113. 

Furness,  Dr.  Horace  Howard, 
public  lecture,  553. 


Gales,  Joseph,  392,  420-421,  421 
(note).  See  "  Raleigh  Regis- 
ter." 

Gallatin,  Albert,  report  on  in- 
ternal improvements,  449-454, 
455- 

Gardner,  H.  B.,  public  lecture, 
550. 

Garrett.  John  W.,  aids  popular 
education,  548. 

Gaston,  Justice  (N.  Carolina), 
quoted.  342-343,  356,  383. 

Geddes,  James,  survey  C.  &  O. 
Canal  route,  506-507. 

German  Democratic  Associa- 
tion, 192-194. 

German  Reform  Party,  192,  194. 

German  vote,  191-197. 

General  Assembly  (Maryland), 
attempt  to  prevent  banking 
increase,  42. 


591] 


Index 


53 


Geology  (Teachers'  Course), 
560-562. 

Oilman,  D.  C,  and  popular  edu- 
cation, 546-547;  public  lec- 
tures, 552,  567,  574. 

Gondran,  P.,  291. 

Good,  John,  361. 

Goodloe,  D.  R.,  325. 

Gosse,  Edmund,  lectures  in 
Baltimore,  545-546. 

Grange,  Arnold  de  la,  308. 

Green,  John  Y.,  361. 

H 

Hagerstown  Bank,  45,  47,  70, 
76,  80,  113,  132. 

Hall,  Dr.  G.  Stanley,  public  lec- 
ture, 567. 

Hall,  Justice  (N.  Carolina), 
quoted,  337,  348. 

Hamilton  Bank,  78,  80,  81,  97, 
108. 

Hamilton,  William  T.,  212. 

Harris,  J.  Morrison,  election 
contested,  232-233. 

Harris,  Dr.  William  T.,  public 
lectures,  555,  567,  574- 

Havre-de-Grace  Bank,  43,  58, 
59,  112. 

Hazel,   Richard,  361. 

Helper,  H.  Rowan  ("  Helper 
Book  "),  249-250. 

Henderson,  Justice  (North  Caro- 
lina), quoted,  337. 

Herrman,  Augustine,  277-278, 
296-299,  305-306,  311-312. 

Herrman,  Casparus,  305. 

Herrman,  Ephraim,  299,  303, 
304,  305-306  (see  "  Bohemia 
Manor  "). 

Hicks,  T.  H.,  quoted,  206-207; 
candidate  for  governor,  216; 
elected  governor,  232;  inaug- 
urated, 237. 

Hindes,  Samuel,  256-257. 

Hill,  Collier,  348-349- 

History  (Teachers'  Course),  556- 
560,  562-565. 

Hollander,  Dr.  J.  H.,  public 
lectures,  572. 

Homer,  Rev.  James  H.,  quoted, 

390-391. 

Howard  Street  Savings  Bank 
(Baltimore),  111-112,  113. 


Howard,  Dr.  William,  advocates 
C.  &  O.  Canal,  474;  surveys 
Maryland  Canal,  522. 

Hughes,  Archbishop,  202. 

I 

Immigration,  190-191,  264,  267- 
268  (see  German  vote). 

Interest,  on  deposits,  16,  38,  119; 
legal  rate,  71 ;  in  Maryland,  99, 
101. 

Internal  improvements.  See 
"  United  States  Government," 
"  Maryland,"  and  "  Gallatin." 

lyenaga,  T.  K.,  popular  lecture, 
549- 


Jacques,  Dr.  W.  W.,  popular 
lecture,  547. 

James,  Bartlett  B.,  on  "The 
Labadist  Colony  in  Mary- 
land," 275-315. 

Jameson,  Dr.  J.  F.,  popular  lec- 
ture, 550. 

Jefferson,  Thomas,  message  on 
internal  improvements,  446- 
447- 

Jenkins,  M.   Courtney,  201. 

Johns  Hopkins  University  and 
public  education,  545-551,  555- 
565,  566-574. 

Johnson,   Reverdy,  211,  224. 

Jones,  Rev.  J.  Wynne,  organ- 
izes "  Workingmen's  Insti- 
tute," 546-548. 

Julian,  George  N.,  quoted,  172 
(note). 

K 

Kennedy,   Anthony,   elected   U. 

S.  Senator,  179. 
Kenrick,  Archbishop,  200-201. 
Kent,     Dr.     Joseph,     president 

"  Washington       Convention," 

474- 

"Kerney  School  Bill,"  159-160, 
200. 

Keyser,  Charles  M.,  256. 

Know-Nothing  Party  (in  Mary- 
land), 153-269;  nature  and  or- 
igin, 153-156;  name,  I54-I55; 
opposition  to  Catholics,  see 


Index 


"Catholics";     beginning     in 
Baltimore,   157;  campaigns  of 

1854,  160-163;  marked  ballots, 
162-163,    231,    241;    growth    in 
Maryland,    156-189,    161,    163- 
164,  211-212;  success  in  United 
States,  164;  abandons  secrecy, 
164-166;    "  National    Council  " 
of  1855,  165-166;  slavery,  166, 
179,  184,  206-209,  215,  266-267; 
first    Maryland    state    conven- 
tion,    166-167;     campaign     of 

1855,  165-173;  Maryland  legis- 
lature   1856,    173-179;   national 
convention  1856,  179-180;  cam- 
paign 1856,  179-189;  causes  of 
success,  190-213;  height  of  suc- 
cess,    214-242;     campaign     of 
1857,  214-234;  legislature  1858, 
234-240;    campaign    1858,   241- 
242;    downfall,    243-259;    cam- 
paign   1859,    243-249;    legisla- 
ture   1860,    249-253;   campaign 
1860,    256-258;    disintegration, 
257-259;     national     platforms, 
263-269. 

Kock,  John,  280. 


Labadie,  Jean  de,  a  mystic,  284; 
youth  and  education,  290; 
leaves  Jesuits,  290;  quarrels 
with  church,  291;  a  Protestant, 
292;  establishes  communal  so- 
ciety, 293;  death,  294;  influ- 
ence, 294-295. 

Labadists,  colony  in  Maryland, 
277-312;  commissioners  to 
America,  301-307;  buy  land, 
308;  character  of  colony,  309- 
310;  disintegration  of  commu- 
nity, 310;  causes  of  failure, 
310-311;  doctrines,  279-284; 
theology,  279-280;  four  cov- 
enants, 280-282;  "  Holy  Spir- 
it," 282;  marriage,  282-283, 
288-289;  status  of  church,  282; 
freedom  from  law,  283;  Lord's 
Supper  and  baptism,  283-284; 
scriptural  study,  284;  mystical 
faith,  284;  government,  285- 
289;  strongly  centralized,  285- 
286;  communistic  life,  286-287, 
300;  division  of  labor,  286; 


peculiar  customs,  286-287;  bib- 
liography, 313-315. 

Lacock,  General,  estimate  cost 
C.  &  O.  Canal,  475-476; 
quoted,  506-507  (note). 

Lanciani,  Prof.,  lecture  in  Bal- 
timore, 546. 

Lane,  Lunsford,  359,  366-368. 

Latane,  Dr.  John  H.,  public  lec- 
tures, 557-558. 

Lee,  Dr.  Guy  Carleton,  public 
lectures,  557. 

Legislature,  Maryland  (1856), 
173-179,  (1858)  234-240;  (1860) 
249-253. 

Lignon,  P.  du,  280,  292. 

Ligon,  Gov.  T.  Watkins,  mes- 
sage to  legislature  (1856),  174- 
175;  interference  in  election 
(I857),  217;  controversy  and 
correspondence  with  Thos. 
Swann,  218-221,  224-227,  230; 
proclamations,  222-223,  229; 
message  to  legislature  (1858), 
234-237. 

Lundy,  Benjamin,  386. 

M 

MacAlister,  Dr.  James,  public 
lectures,  555,  567,  574- 

McHenry,  James,  move  for  bank 
in  (1782),  17. 

McMahon,  John  V.  L.,  224. 

McPhail,  D.  J.,  167. 

McPhail,  D.  H.,  216. 

Madison,  James,  favors  internal 
improvements,  456-457;  vetoes 
bill  for,  458. 

"  Maine  Law  Temperance  Tick- 
et," 159-161,  169. 

Mallary,  Rev.  C.  Payson,  310. 

Manning,  Dr.  John,  quoted,  344. 

Marine  Bank  of  Baltimore, 
chartered,  41;  stock  quota- 
tions, 53;  condition  (1830),  76; 
charter  extended,  86. 

Martin,  Prof.  H.  N.,  public  lec- 
tures, 547,  548. 

Martin,  J.  W.,  public  lecture, 
556. 

Martin,  R.  N.,  224. 

Maryland,  action  in  regard  to 
C.  &  O.  Canal,  47O-474,  485- 
488,  531-534;  industries,  12-13, 


593] 


Index 


55 


40,  96,  133;  exports  and  im- 
ports, 21-22,  48. 

Maryland  Republican,  206,  210. 

Maryland  Union,  207. 

May,  Henry,  212. 

Mayer,  Charles  F.,  224. 

Mears,  Mr.,  414. 

Mechanics'  Bank  of  Baltimore, 
60,  64;  chartered,  24;  stock 
quotations,  53;  discounts,  70- 
71;  condition  (1830),  76;  char- 
ter extended,  86. 

Merchants'  Bank  (Baltimore), 
78,  81,  85-88,  97,  107,  108,  134. 

Mercer,  Charles  Fenton,  in  C. 
&  O.  Canal  Convention,  474- 
477,  479,  484;  president  canal 
company,  512-513;  quoted,  514, 
515,  527. 

Meredith,  J.,  224. 

Meredith,  William,  372-373. 

Meteorology  (Teachers'  Course), 
569-570. 

Methodists,  and  slavery,  369-377. 

"  Metropolitan,"  204, 

Mineral  Bank  of  Cumberland, 
78,  97,  123. 

Mitchell,  Rev.  J.  D.,  quoted,  387. 

Moll,  John,  304,  308. 

Monroe,  James,  and  internal  im- 
provements, 458,  477-478,  487, 
491-492,  493-496. 

Montefiore,  influence  on  Mary- 
land banking,  14. 

Moore,  B.  F.,  341-342. 

Moore,  Thomas,  survey  C.  &  O. 
Canal,  464-468. 

Morris,   Albert,   361. 

Morris,  Freeman,  361. 

Municipal  Government  (Teach- 
ers' Course),  572. 

Murphy,  Henry  C.,  277-278. 

Murray,  N.,  and  popular  educa- 
tion, 546-547. 

N 

National    Bank   Act,    effects   in 

Maryland,  129-132. 
National  University,  579-582. 
Neale,  F.,  201. 
Nelson,  John,  224. 
New     Market     Fire     Company, 

181. 


North  Carolina,  slavery  in.  See 
"  Slavery." 

Notes  (bank),  38-39,  50,  52  (and 
note),  53-54,  57-59,  60,  68-70, 
71-72,  74,  75,  86,  iii-ii2,  114- 

Il6,     II7-II8,     I2I-I22,     127-129, 

135;     (stock)    65-66,     103-104; 
(post)  103;  "bettering  notes," 
84- 
Note-brokers,  54,  68,   108-109. 

O 

Officers  (bank),  powers,  etc.,  67, 

71,  73,  103,  109,  117,  119. 
Ohio  Company,  433-436. 
Qlmsted,  quoted,  404-406. 
Osborn,  Charles,  386. 


Paper  money,  first  issue  in 
Maryland,  n;  subsequent  is- 
sues and  amounts,  11-12,  100- 
101. 

Patrol.     See  "  Slave  patrol." 

Pearce,  James  Alfred,  211. 

Pettigrew,  Rev.  W.  S.,  392. 

People's  Bank  of  Baltimore,  113, 
132. 

Physical  Geography  (Advanced 
Teachers'  Course),  568. 

Physics  (Teachers'  Course),  566- 
567,  570. 

Planters'  Bank  of  Prince 
George's  County,  43,  58,  59, 
60,  78,  104. 

"  Plug  Uglies,"  181,  182,  214. 

Police  reorganization  (Balti- 
more), 98,  249-250,  253-255. 

Polk,  Thomas  G.,  418-419. 

Pope,  temporal  power,  203-205. 

Post  notes.     See  "  Notes." 

"  Potomac  Canal  Company," 
470-471. 

Potomac  Company,  436-440,  463- 
467,  487-488. 

Pratt,  ex-Gov.,  211. 

Price,  William,  224. 

Princess  Elizabeth  (of  Bohemia), 
294. 

Presbyterians,  and  slavery,  387- 
392. 

Preston,  William  P.,  196,  212. 

Profits  (and  dividends),  39,  102, 
129. 


56 


Index1 


[594 


Protestant  Episcopal  Church, 
and  slavery,  392. 

Public  education  in  Baltimore, 
545-585;  lectures  at  J.  H.  U., 
545-551,  555-565;  at  Canton, 
546-548;  to  B.  &  O.  employ- 
ees, 548;  university  extension, 
548-551;  Teachers'  Associa- 
tion, 552-554;  examination  of 
teachers,  562;  subjects  of  es- 
says, 562-564;  prize-winners, 
564;  teachers  receiving  certifi- 
cates, 565;  courses  (1899-1900), 
566-74. 

Public  schools,  Catholic  opposi- 
tion to,  199-201;  Know-Noth- 
ing  Party  support,  265-266. 

Purefoy,  Rev.,  quoted,  379-380. 

Purnell,  W.  H.,  167,  248. 

Q 

Quarry,  William,  349-350. 
Quakers,     and    Labadists,    293, 

299,  303-305;  and  slavery,  345, 

348,  369,  380-387. 

R 

"  Raleigh  Register,"  410,  411- 
412,  419,  420-421,  422. 

Randall,  Hon.  Alexander,  opin- 
ion on  state  banks,  130-131. 

Rasin,  I.  Freeman,  187,  259. 

Real  estate  banks,  78,  79-80. 

"  Redding  vs.  Long,"  350. 

Reform  committee  (Baltimore), 
256-257. 

Remsen,  Prof.  Ira,  popular  lec- 
tures, 547,  552. 

Republican  Party,  180,  181,  258- 
259- 

"  Reubenites,"    185. 

Rhodes,  James  Ford,  quoted, 
152-153  (note),  197-198. 

Richards,  Henry  B.,  immigra- 
tion agent  of  C.  &  O.  Canal, 
SIS- 

Richardson,  Locke,  popular  lec- 
ture, 553- 

<(  Rip  Raps,"  181,  182. 

Roads  (state),  banking  interest 
in,  44-48,  60-61  (and  note),  76, 
90. 

Roberts,  Nathan  S.,  survey  C. 
&  O.  Canal  route,  506-507. 


I   Rockwell,  Julius,   quoted,   418. 
Ruffin,    Justice    (N.     Carolina), 

quoted,  339-341,  344,  347- 
Russell,    Dr.    James    E.,    public 

lecture,  574. 


Salisbury  Bank,  78,  80,  95. 

"  Sam  "  (popular  name  Know- 
Nothing  Party),  154,  164. 

"  Sampson  vs.  Burgwin,"  347. 

Savings  banks,   110-113. 

Schmeckebier,  Laurence  Fred- 
erick, on  "  Know-Nothing 
Party  in  Maryland,"  149-269. 

Schouler,  Dr.  James,  public  lec- 
tures, 557-558. 

Schotel,  Dr.  J.  D.  T.,  quoted, 
290. 

Schriver,  James,  surveys  of  C. 
&  O.  Canal  route,  449  (and 
note). 

Schurman,  Abraham  van,  292. 

Schurman,  Anna  Maria  van,  292- 
293,  299-300. 

Schurman,  Jacob  Gould,  career 
of,  583- 

Shutt,  Col.  A.  P.,  241. 

"  Scipio  "  (slave),  361. 

Scott,  T.  Parkin,  201. 

Seabrook,  L.  W.,  216. 

Sedgwick,  Dr.  William  T.,  pub- 
lic lecture,  548. 

Serviss,  Garrett  P.,  public  lec- 
ture, 553- 

Sewell,  Dr.  Henry,  public  lec- 
ture, 548.  ' 

Shattuck,  Dr.  George  B.,  public 
lectures,  560-562,  566,  568. 

Sheldon,  Mrs.  French,  public 
lecture,  553. 

"  Shepherd  of  the  Valley,"  204- 
205. 

Slavery,  attitude  "  Know-Noth- 
ing Party,"  see  "  Know-Noth- 
ing Party";  in  North  Caro- 
lina, 323-427;  changing  condi- 
tions (1831),  323-324;  influence 
"  cotton  aristocracy,"  324-325; 
Nat.  Turner's  Rebellion  and 
anti-slavery  agitation,  325; 
legal  status  slave,  326-344; 
severity  laws,  326-327;  slave  in 
court,  327-330;  "  inferior  of- 
fenses," 329-330;  runaways, 


595] 


Index 


330-331 ;  slave's  right  to  hunt, 
33J-332;  right  to  travel  and 
trade,  332-336;  right  to  life, 
336-344;  emancipation,  345- 
350;  free  negroes,  350-362; 
religious  life,  363-392;  attitude 
of  masters  toward  religion, 
363-364;  restrictive  laws,  364- 
365;  slaves  and  religion,  365- 
368;  attitude  of  churches,  368- 
369;  Methodists,  369-377;  Bap- 
tists, 377-380;  Quakers,  380- 
387;  Presbyterians,  387-392; 
Episcopalians,  392;  industrial 
and  social  relations,  393-409; 
population,  393-394;  distribu- 
tion, 394-398;  regulation  of 
life,  398-409;  pro-slavery  sen- 
timent, 410-425;  slave  con- 
spiracies, 410-413;  growth  of 
slavery  sentiment,  413-425; 
bibliography,  426-427. 

Slave  patrol,  332-333- 

Sluyter,  Bishop,  head  of  Mary- 
land community,  285,  288-289, 
308;  commissioner  to  Ameri- 
ca, 301-307;  character,  311. 

Smith,  Adam,  influence  on 
Maryland  banking,  14. 

Smith,  E.  P.,  public  lecture,  549. 

Smyth,  Albert  H.,  public  lec- 
tures, 557,  567,  573-574- 

Sociology  (Teachers'  Course), 
571-572. 

Sellers,  Basil,  organization  lec- 
ture courses,  553. 

Somerset  and  Worcester  Bank, 
55,  58,  71,  113- 

Somerset  Bank,  43,  55,  58. 

Spalding,  B.  R.,  201. 

Specie  payments,  suspension 
(1814),  48-54;  in  Maryland,  57- 
59,  71,  96-98,  99-104,  119-123, 
125-129. 

Speight,  Mr.,  quoted,  415-416. 

"  Spirit  of  '76,"  161-162. 

Stanley,  Edward,  423. 

Stanley,  John  C.,  359-361. 

State   banks.     See   "  Banking." 

State  vs.  Boon,  336;  State  vs. 
Hale,  338;  State  vs.  Hoover, 
338;  State  vs.  Jarrot,  343; 
State  vs.  Mann,  338-340;  State 
vs.  Reed,  337;  State  vs.  Will, 
341-343. 


Steele,  I.  Nevett,  224. 

Steiner,  Dr.  Bernard  C.,  public 
lectures,  557. 

Steiner,  Dr.  L.  H.,  quoted,  182, 
183-184. 

Sternberg,  K.  Rudolph,  quoted, 
195  (note). 

Steuart,  Sir  James,  influence  on 
Maryland  banking,  14. 

Stevenson,  E.  L.,  public  lecture, 
550. 

Stewart,  Andrew,  favors  C.  &  O. 
Canal,  503-504. 

Stocks  of  Maryland  banks,  53, 
102,  128-129,  133-134,  138;  tax- 
ation of,  87-88. 

Stock  notes.    See  "  Notes." 

Stock  certificates,  84. 

Stuart,  Gen.  George  H.,  221. 

Sun  (Baltimore),  quoted,  195 
(note). 

Suspension  of  1814  (in  Mary- 
land), 48-54. 

Susquehanna  Bank  and  Bridge 
Company  (Susquehanna 

Bank),  43,  47,  55,  95,  104-105. 

Swann,  Thomas,  nominated  for 
mayoralty,  180;  election,  218; 
controversy  and  correspond- 
ence with  Gov.  Ligon,  218- 
221,  224-227,  230;  proclama- 
tions, 227-228;  re-elected,  241- 
242;  police  reorganization,  242; 
political  changes,  259;  admin- 
istration, 259. 

Sylvester,  Prof.  J.  J.,  public  lec- 
ture, 547. 


Tappan,  Lewis,  421. 

Taxation  of  banks,  44-48;  of 
notes,  72;  of  stocks,  87-88. 

Taylor,  Chief  Justice  (N.  Caro- 
lina), quoted,  336,  337-338, 
348. 

Teachers'  Association  (Balti- 
more), 552-554- 

Teachers'  courses,  in  history, 
physics,  etc.,  see  "  History," 
"  Physics,"  etc.;  prospectus 
(1899-1900),  568-574. 

Thomas,  ex-Gov.,  212. 

Tocqueville,  Alexis  de,  quoted, 
153- 


58 


Inde^: 


[596 


Trent,  W.  P.,  public  lecture,  549. 
Turner,  Nat.,  "  rebellion,"  325. 

U 

Union  Bank  of  Allegany,  78,  79. 

Union  Bank  of  Maryland,  capi- 
tal, 16;  chartered,  22-23;  stock, 
39-53;  losses,  60;  reduction 
capital,  64;  policy,  67  (and 
note);  condition  (1830),  76; 
state  stock,  81,  108;  charter 
extended,  86;  relations  with 
Md.  Bank,  91,  92. 

"  United  Sons  of  America,"  158- 
160. 

United  States  Government,  in- 
ternal improvements,  441,  443- 
461,  470-481,  487-489,  491-496, 
497-504,  505-507,  509-517,  535- 

University  extension  (Balti- 
more), 548-551. 

V 

Vansant,  Joshua,  212. 

Verval  en  Val  Labadisten,  quot- 
ed, 285-286,  287-289,  295. 

Vincent,  Dr.  J.  M.,  public  lec- 
ture, 549-550. 

Virginia,  and  C.  &  O.  Canal, 
470-474,  483-485,  487-489- 

Voet,  Gysbert,  280. 

W 

Walker,  David,  anti-slavery  agi- 
tation, 416-417. 

Wallis,  S.  Teackle,  211,  224. 

Ward,  George  Washington,  on 
"  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal 
Project,"  429-537. 


Warner,  A.  G.,  public  lecture, 
550. 

Washington,  George,  president 
Potomac  Company,  436-440; 
visits  to  Baltimore,  575-585. 

Washington  County  Bank,  47, 
107. 

"  Washington  University  "  (Bal- 
timore), 581  (note). 

Webster,  Edwin  H.,  234. 

Weiward,  mother  church  of 
Labadists,  285,  287,  288-289, 
295,  299-300,  310,  311. 

Wesley,  Rev.  John,  opposition- 
to  slavery,  369. 

Western  Bank  of  Baltimore,  78,. 
97,  107,  no. 

White,  Andrew  D.,  lectures  in 
Baltimore,  546. 

Whitford,  Col.  John  D.,  quoted, 
360. 

Whyte,  William  Pinckney,  212; 
contests  election,  232-233. 

Wilson,  Henry,  166. 

Wilson,  Thomas  J.,  248. 

Woodworth,  C.  L.,  public  lec- 
ture, 547- 

Workingmen's  Institute  (Can- 
ton), 546-548. 

Wortham,  George,  quoted,  389- 
390. 

Wright,  Robert  Clinton,  180- 
181,  229. 

Wright,  W.  H.  D.  C.,  229. 


Yvon,  Pierre,  285,  292,  295. 


Zoology      (Teachers'      Course), 
571- 


HG  Bryan,  Alfred  Cookman 

2611  History  of  state  banking 

M3B7  in  Maryland 


PLEASE  DO  NOT  REMOVE 
CARDS  OR  SLIPS  FROM  THIS  POCKET 

UNIVERSITY  OF  TORONTO  LIBRARY